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:5229] Re: 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. 

No Rakesh,

From my point of view, and Bose's, I haven't confused physical
productivity with value productivity. Bose's argument is quite different in
style to mine--and well worth reading. We both find a more direct link
between physical and value productivity than exists with the LTV, but our
routes to that conclusion differ. My route is directly from the concepts of
use-value and exchange-value.

I argue that use-value is quantitative in the M--C--M+ circuit, and
measured in value units, and the two magnitudes are incommensurable with
each other in the sense Marx meant, which was that one plays no role in
determining the other *for strict commodities*. This incommensurability
means there will be a difference between the use-value and the
exchange-value of *any* input to production--no input is privileged above
any other. All are potential sources of surplus-value.

The analysis is more complex when one takes into account the fact that
neither labor nor machinery are strict commodities in the sense Marx
considers them in the first 9 chapters of capital--as indeed neither is
money, which Marx nonetheless also treats as a commodity in that section of
his analysis. When one allows for the non-commodity aspects of labor and of
machinery (and money), you get complications to this basic result. However,
the basic result remains accurate given the issues from which it abstracts.

Take a careful look at the section of capital after the quote I have
given--in the Progress Press edition, from pages 188-199. Disregard the
issue of whether my interpretation of Marx is or is not valid: just look at
how Marx attempts to make the case that machinery does not produce
surplus-value. You will see that an enormous part of his argument is in
terms of the use-value and exchange-value of machinery. I argue that he
achieved the result he wanted by erroneously equating the use-value of the
machine to its exchange-value--whereas when talking of labor, he was
adamant that the two (value) quantities are incommensurable. I regard this
as the error of logic which preserved the labor theory of value.

I don't hold an iceblock in hell's chance of convincing you of my argument,
and I'm not attempting to do so. What I am trying to point out to you,
however, is the extent to which the intellectual challenge Marx set himself
in this crucial part of capital was expressed in terms of the use-value and
exchange-value of machinery. I believe that the vast majority of marxists
miss this issue completely (the only ones who ever saw it were Hilferding,
Rosdolsky, Groll, Desai, and me).

Steve


At 10:16 PM 3/21/01 -0800, you wrote: 
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









Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
LOCKED BAG 1797
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
Australia
s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]