OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L:5228] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

Dear Rakesh,

please read my posts more carefully.

I was quoting Arun Bose in the section you highlighted. 

Yes, Steve, I understand that I am expressing a criticism of Bose's
conclusion with which you are expressing assent (and I'll look for
Bose's book in the library). But the question remains: have you and
Bose confused the possibility of an indirect effect on surplus value
from the use value of a machine with the thesis that the use value of
a machine (that is dead labor) is itself directly productive of new
value?

I'll reattach my original post since you did not respond to it.





It seems to me that you are conflating use value and value, the
determination of the physical quantities produced and the
determination of the value of the produced output.

Marx is not saying that the use value of labor power is the only
source of surplus produce, defined as the physical quantity of
goods over and above those needed for replacement of the goods
consumed in production.

The physical quantity of commodities produced is determined by the
quality and quantity of the consumed means of production, the
quantity and quality of the direct labor employed and the
interaction of tools and direct labor (e.g., more will be produced
if better tools are employed by more skilled labor).

(1) Qmp + Qlp + (QmpxQlp) => Quv

In the above we count means of production and labor power of
greater quality simply as a greater quantity.

Now  no one is denying that the physical quantities produced are
determined as much by the use value of the machine as the use value
of labor power. Indeed in an advanced economy, it may make most
sense to say  that it is the interaction between machine and
workers which best accounts for the quantities produced.

However, no matter how great or little in quantity the use values
produced, their value is determined as the sum of indirect and
direct labor time.

(2) Lmp + Lc => V


Now of course if labor is more physically productive in use value
terms due to use of a better machine, the rate of exploitation can
be higher in value terms  since (assuming a constant real wage)
there will be a reduction in the variable capital which has to be
advanced to allow workers to buy the wage goods which they  need.

(For the same reason, there could be a gain in surplus value from
a reduction in the constant capital which has to be advanced to
purchase the means of production needed to absorb surplus labor).

So yes it can be said--and here perhaps I break with Michael W--
that the use value of the machine INDIRECTLY contributes to the
determination of which portion of total value is surplus value no
less than the use value of labor power directly determines the sum
of surplus value produced.

But I don't think this is what you are saying.

Yours, Rakesh











[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]