Subject: [OPE-L:1662] Re: Re: Re: Re: technical change and real wages
From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Nov 11 1999 - 05:32:33 EST
At 12:47 11/11/99 +0530, you wrote:
Ajit says most efficient technology value determining.
In this case sum of values less than sum of labour hours
for economy as a whole by a variable fraction depependent
on standard deviation of productivity.
It is anomalous to determine a measure by
the extrema of the observations.
>Duncan K. Foley wrote:
>
> > Actually, it seems to me that Okishio was trying to answer this passage (on
> > the assumption that the technical change was once-and-for-all), by showing
> > that if the new method appeared to raise the rate of profit for the
> > individual capitalist it could not lower the rate of profit in the system
> > as a whole once it was universally adopted.
>
>_____________
>
>I agree with this. I think the real problem in Marx is that he
>assumes that at
>any time a spectrum of technology is operating to produce one
>commodity. He is
>not clear in this case which technology will determine the value,
>so sometimes
>he thinks of taking some sort of 'average technology' to be the
>value
>determining. I think this procedure creates various theoretical
>problems for
>Marx. The better way out would be to assume that the most
>efficient technology
>at any time is the value determining technology. Cheers, ajit
>sinha
>
> >
> >
> > >Ajit wrote in [OPE-L:1633]:
> > >
> > >> Chris, there is no basis for this "assumption" in Marx. What is the
> > >> logic behind the assumption that rate of surplus value will remain
> > >> constant in the face of technical changes? All Marx is doing is to
> > >> suggest that *if* the rate of surplus value remains constant then the
> > >> implication of a rise in the organic composition of capital is a fall
> > >> in the rate of profits. <snip>
> > >
> > >I'm with Ajit on this point. In his discussion of "more intense
> > >exploitation of labour" in the chapter on "counteracting factors",
> > >Marx makes it clear that the rate of surplus value can not be taken to
> > >be constant over the process of accumulation and discusses briefly the
> > >case which he takes to be typical -- that of an increase in the rate
> > >of surplus value.
> > >
> > >btw, does the following passage (from the chapter on "Development of the
> > >Law's Internal Contradictions") anticipate and answer the Okishio
> > >Theorem?:
> > >
> > > "No capitalist voluntarily applies a new method of production,
> > > no matter how much more productive itmay be or how much it
> > > might raise the rate of surplus-value, if it reduces the rate
> > > of profit. But every new method of production of this kind
> > > makes commodities cheaper. At first, therefore, he can sell
> > > them above their price of production, perhaps above their
> > > value. He pockets the difference between their costs of
> > > production and the market price of the other commodities,
> > > which are produced at higher production costs. This is
> > > possible because the average socially necessary labour-time
> > > required to produce these latter commodities is greater than
> > > the labour-time required with the new method of production.
> > > His production procedure is ahead of the social average. But
> > > competition also makes the new procedure universal and subjects
> > > it to the general fall. A fall in the profit rate then ensues -
> > > firstly perhaps in this sphere of production, and subsequently
> > > with the others - a fall that is completely independent of the
> > > capitalists' will" (Penguin ed., pp. 373-374)
> > >
> > >In solidarity, Jerry
> >
> > Duncan K. Foley
> > Department of Economics
> > Graduate Faculty
> > New School University
> > 65 Fifth Avenue
> > New York, NY 10003
> > (212)-229-5906
> > messages: (212)-229-5717
> > fax: (212)-229-5724
> > e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
> > alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
> > webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST