Surplus value

["Paddy Apling" <e.c.apling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Charles Brown
> Sent: 07 February 2003 23:29
> To: marxmail
> Subject: Labor aristocracy/ Conspiracy theory of Marilyn Monroe's death
>
> CB:
> Just because labor is more productive does not mean that the bosses can
> therefore extract more surplus value from it. Human labor,or variable
> capital, is the only source of value and surplus value (exchange
> value) in  Marx's conception. Constant capital is not a source of surplus
value.
> However, productivity increases as the proportion of constant to variable
> capital increases. In general, the greater proporation of
> constant capital to  variable capital is introduced because it increases
productivity.
> That is it  allows the same number of units of commodities to be produced
with fewer
> human labor hours, i.e. with less variable capital ( in Marx's Vol. 1
> discussion ; I have some recall that Michael Perlman may advise that this
> gets more complicated as the analysis is more concrete in Vol. III; or is
> that a different issue ?). Since variable capital is the only source of
> surplus value, the reduction in the proportion of surplus value
> means less surplus value per unit commodity. So, workers working with
higher
> technological instruments of production, i.e. less labor intensive
production
> is less rich in surplus value. Workers in imperialist countries and
> industries are in general using more efficient technology and
> more productive  thereby, but does that make them a richer or poorer
source of
> surplus value ?
> Not necessarily (?)

Here is a very serious question for Marxian economics: as production becomes
more and more automated with as a consequence greater concentration of
constant as against variable capital - and as a reflection of this the
ever-increasing concentration of employees in the imperialist countries into
service instead of productive functions and the export of production to the
"third world".

Does this mean that surplus value is more and more coming from the
non-metropolitan countries?
Is this now the main drive to war for control of the poorer countries?

Or is this far too simplistic?

Paddy
NFHS Member #5594
Mailto:E.C.Apling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://apling.freeservers.com/index.htm
or http://www.e.c.apling.btinternet.co.uk





~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.