Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Re: query: Historical Materialism

[miyachi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

on 2/2/02 02:55 AM, Justin Schwartz at jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>
>>
>> But the argument that workers contribute more to the value of output
>> than they receive in compensation does not necessarily imply that
>> either:
>>
>> a) labor is the only source of value
>>
>> or
>>
>> b) that workers are entitled morally to a wage equal to the value of
>> their contribution
>>
>> right?
>>
>
> Right. Moreover the proposition that you state is obviously true, and will
> be accepted by any sentient being who thinks about the matter for a second.
>
> jks
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world痴 largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
Sir Justin Scywartz
your argument on value is incorrect.
Marx analyzed how does surplus- value make.
Below is Marx's piece of description on surplus-value

"Every condition of the problem is satisfied, while the laws that regulate
the exchange of commodities, have been in no way violated. Equivalent has
been exchanged for equivalent. For the capitalist as buyer paid for each
commodity, for the cotton, the spindle and the labour-power, its full value.
He then did what is done by every purchaser of commodities; he consumed
their use-value. The consumption of the labour-power, which was also the
process of producing commodities, resulted in 20 lbs. of yarn, having a
value of 30 shillings. The capitalist, formerly a buyer, now returns to
market as a seller, of commodities. He sells his yarn at eighteenpence a
pound, which is its exact value. Yet for all that he withdraws 3 shillings
more from circulation than he originally threw into it. This metamorphosis,
this conversion of money into capital, takes place both within the sphere of
circulation and also outside it; within the circulation, because conditioned
by the purchase of the labour-power in the market; outside the circulation,
because what is done within it is only a stepping-stone to the production of
surplus-value, a process which is entirely confined to the sphere of
production. Thus "tout est pour le mieux dans le meflleur des mondes
possibles."

By turning his money into commodities that serve as the material elements of
a new product, and as factors in the labour-process, by incorporating living
labour with their dead substance, the capitalist at the same time converts
value, i.e., past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value
big with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies.

If we now compare the two processes of producing value and of creating
surplus-value, we see that the latter is nothing but the continuation of the
former beyond a definite point. If on the one hand the process be not
carried beyond the point, where the value paid by the capitalist for the
labour-power is replaced by an exact equivalent, it is simply a process of
producing value; if, on the other hand, it be continued beyond that point,
it becomes a process of creating surplus-value. "

MIYACHI TATSUO
PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT
KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL
KOMAKI CITY
AICHI Pre.
JAPAN

miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx