nicola taylor (nmtaylor@carmen.murdoch.edu.au)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:46:35 +0800
Fred, thanx a lot for your questions (OPE-L 1904)
>
>Nicky seems to be saying that R-W are not interested in a quantitative
>theory of surplus-value. I wonder if R & W would agree?
Yes i'm wondering also. Am i wrong??????
>
>Instead, Nicky says that R-W are interested in an analysis of the "form
>determination of the process of surplus-value production". Nicky, would
>you please explain further what you mean by the "form determination of the
>process of surplus-value production". Is this something that you think
>that Marx's theory does not provide?
What matters to capitalists is M'>M; accumulation. The key issue for them
(capitalists) is not how much surplus value is extracted, but how much SV
is realised (in money terms). To this end capitalists make an ideal
precommensuration of the labour time required maximise profit on the
product of labour, in the market. In so far as the production of exchange
values (albeit that these depend upon the interpenetration of value and use
value in the product of labour) is the determining element in setting the
labour process in motion, production of SV is form determined; i.e. there
is an ontological inversion whereby capital rather than labour becomes the
subject of production.
I think that Marx does provide the basis for this 'reconstruction' in his
discussion of the relationship of capital and labour in the Grundrisse (but
see Chris Arthur's 'Rivisti' paper: "Capital is not only command of unpaid
labour, as Karl Marx thought. It is essentially command of labour, i.e. of
the entire working day").
>
>Comradely,
Nicky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Dec 19 1999 - 11:17:56 EST