[OPE-L:3479] Re: "Debunking Economics" and Marx's value theory

[Paul Zarembka <zarembka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve, How do your citations compare to the careful reconstruction by
Lapides, *Marx's Wage Theory in Historical Perspective: Its Origins,
Development and Interpretations*, 1998?    Does minimum wage mean for you
biological subsistence?  Paul Z.

***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting  RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka


"Steve Keen" <stevekeen10@xxxxxxxxxxx> said, on 06/11/00:

>I argue that Marx clearly and properly
>equates to the value of the means of subsistence--is not the actual wage,
> but the minimum wage. I have cited these references numerous times
>before on  OPE (has anyone ever read them, I wonder??), but here we go
>again:

>"The natural price of labour is nothing but the minimum wage." (*The
>Poverty  of Philosophy*, p. 55 [though this clearly predates his
>dialectic analysis,  the dialectic made this insight more profound]);

>In a section of the *Grundrisse* entitled "*The minimum of wages*", Marx
>shows that the statement that labour receives only its value is an
>assumption, to be dropped at a later stage of analysis:

>Quote: "For the time being, necessary labour supposed as such; i.e. that
>the  worker always obtains only the minimum of
>wages. This supposition is necessary, of course, so as to establish the
>laws  of profit in so far as they are not determined
>by the rise and fall of wages or by the influence of landed property. All
> these fixed suppositions themselves become fluid in
>the further course of development." (p. 817)

>And so on; there are several other instances. Whenever Marx compares the
>wage to the value of labor-power, he speaks of the "minimum wage".