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.

Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus value identity

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

----- Original Message -----
From: ì?´ì±?ì?¸
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: [RE]Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus value
identity






Marx argues that the workers give free credit to the capitalist!

If a capitalist starts his business with borrowed money, does he advance
nothing at all?



Chai-on



  --------------------------------------- [ Original Message ]
--------------------------------------
  Sender : Jerry Levy < Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx >
  Date : 2006-05-17 05:23:43
  S u b j e c t : Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus
value identity

  > You suggest: There is support in Marx for the idea that these
[salaries of
  > non-productive labor] are advanced, I think. After all, if the wages for
  > productive workers are advanced (i.e. V is advanced) then why not also
for
  > the wages of unproductive workers?
  > My reply is that Marx's basic principle is that the wages are mainly
*not*
  > "advanced", i.e. the worker contracts to work first, and gets paid later.

  Jurriaan,

  V and C are *advanced* in Marx's theory to the extent that --within
  period analysis -- money to purchase means of production and
  labour power is assumed to be spent before production in the new
  period can commence.

  I.e. in the formula

  M - C {MP, LP} ... (P) .... C' - M'

  M - C happens before P.

  Of course, Marx was aware that the wages of workers are not, _in practice_,
  (generally) advanced. In claiming that money capital for V is advanced I
  think he was making a simplifying assumption.

  I'm still thinking about the rest of your post.

  In solidarity, Jerry
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: [RE]Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus value identity

 

 Marx argues that the workers give free credit to the capitalist!

If a capitalist starts his business with borrowed money, does he advance nothing at all?

 

Chai-on

 

--------------------------------------- [ Original Message ] --------------------------------------
Sender : Jerry Levy < Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx >
To : OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date : 2006-05-17 05:23:43
S u b j e c t : Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus value identity

> You suggest: There is support in Marx for the idea that these [salaries of
> non-productive labor] are advanced, I think. After all, if the wages for
> productive workers are advanced (i.e. V is advanced) then why not also for
> the wages of unproductive workers?
> My reply is that Marx's basic principle is that the wages are mainly *not*
> "advanced", i.e. the worker contracts to work first, and gets paid later.

Jurriaan,

V and C are *advanced* in Marx's theory to the extent that --within
period analysis -- money to purchase means of production and
labour power is assumed to be spent before production in the new
period can commence.

I.e. in the formula

M - C {MP, LP} ... (P) .... C' - M'

M - C happens before P.

Of course, Marx was aware that the wages of workers are not, _in practice_,
(generally) advanced. In claiming that money capital for V is advanced I
think he was making a simplifying assumption.

I'm still thinking about the rest of your post.

In solidarity, Jerry
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]