IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Rakesh wrote:
> >> Confused here. I thought you were chiding > Michael L > >> for not having > >> a causal theory but then you seem to suggest > that > >> attribution of > >> causes is superstitious? > >_________________
And Ajit responded:
> > > >How can I chid Michael L! What I was humbly > pointing > >out was that he is developing a causal explanation, > >but his explanation turns out to be circular--a no! > >no! for any causal theory.
Now, I'm confused. I simply posed the proposition--- let us assume the rate of exploitation given (as Marx assumed in Vol3, Ch. 13 and as he discussed in the 1861-63 Economic Manuscript) and I suggested that we justify this by assuming that the balance of class forces is given at a given point of time. (In my chapter, 'Wages', I introduce the degree of separation among workers as a variable and assume that given at a given point of time.) Then, I asked, what are the implications of rising productivity (and what happens to the theory of relative surplus value when we no longer assume the real wage given)? Methodologically, how is this any different from what Ajit is doing? Ajit accepts that the real wage is determined by class struggle; he presumably also agrees that the workday is set as a result of class struggle. In this, he would be simply accepting that capitalist and worker push in opposite directions on these fronts and that the respective power of the combatants (ie., the balance of class forces) sets both. Ajit (following Marx's provisional assumption) then assumes the real wage given for a given country at a given time and then would consider the effect of rising productivity on the rate of exploitation. How is one argument circular and the other not? More significant, though, are the unanswered questions--- what is the logic behind assuming the real wage constant, what are the conditions necessary for this assumption to hold and what is its implication? in solidarity, michael
--------------------- Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
- Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, (continued)
- Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, Rakesh Bhandari Mon 17 Nov 2003, 17:07 GMT
- Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, ajit sinha Wed 19 Nov 2003, 07:08 GMT
- Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, Rakesh Bhandari Wed 19 Nov 2003, 17:23 GMT
- OPE-L Value and the World Economy Today Production, Finance and Globalization Richard Westra, Alan Zuege, Rakesh Bhandari Wed 19 Nov 2003, 20:24 GMT