[OPE-L:5638] Re: the division of labor in a dialectical systematic theory of capitalism?

[Rakesh Narpat Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry wrote in 5364:

> In 5632 Ajit wrote:
>
> >  The problem is simple: how do you deal with the
> >  means of production part of the commodity in its
> >  exchange?
>
> Reuten-Williams after an answer to that problem
> in _Value-Form and the State_, pp. 68-71. In
> brief, from their perspective the magnitude of the
> value transferred  from the means of production is
> determined by the *current value*  (or what R/W
> call the *current ideal value*) of the m of
> p rather than the historical value (historical costs).
> On this point, see 9c (71) and note 6 (69).

Jerry, by determining social value of the means of production as the
cost of reproduction at the time the output is sold,  both VFT (it
seems) and TSS (especially Carchedi) seem to be at odds with the neo
Ricardian attempt to compute labor contents of physical inputs
through the reduction of dated quantities of labour (Carchedi, p.
96-7). I don't see however how this answers Joan Robinson's and
Ajit's challenge that the  current ideal value cannot any more than
the embodied labor value of of the means of production be determined
without commodity residue.

Then it gets more complicated. Fred himself underlines that the value
of the used up means of prod is not the same as the value of the
money needed to buy the used up means of production at current costs;
but he argues that the value transferred by the working from the
means of production is determined by the latter, not former,
magnitude. If I understood Andrew K, he is arguing that the value of
the means of production *is* the value of the money that was needed
to buy them at historical costs, and this is the value which is
transferred by the working class to the output.

So Ajit has a couple of answers to his question about how the means
of production part of commodities is dealt with in exchange to choose
from among mumbo jumbo speaking Hegelians.

So it would seem however that by dealing with the value of means of
production of the commodity in monetary terms, both Fred and Andrew
can sidestep any problem in determining the  labor value of the means
of production themselves without commodity residue. This option is
not open to me.

From her piece in the Jesse Schwartz, ed Subtle Anatomy of
Capitalism, Robinson  seems to think that the net physical output can
be determined easily, but I think Alan F and Andrew K have raised
sharp objections to this.

Yours, Rakesh