[OPE-L:5227] Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2001 - 23:22:03 EST

Dear Rakesh,

please read my posts more carefully.

I was quoting Arun Bose in the section you highlighted.

Why not read his book and see what he had to say?

At 04:46 PM 3/21/01 -0800, you wrote:
>re 5225
>>Perhaps I had better first apologise for my tone in the previous email; I 
>>have I think even more experience (in discussions with marxists) of being 
>>in the intellectual minority [I count Arun Bose as the only other scholar 
>>who has explicitly argued "<I>Theorem 6<D>: In a capitalist economy with 
>>positive capital accumulation, labour is not, <I>immediately<D> or 
>><I>ultimately<D>, the <I>only<D> or the <I>main<D> source of price, 
>>***surplus produce***, or profit." (Marx on exploitation and inequality, 
>>Delhi Uni Press 1980).
>(my emphasis)
>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 
>(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
s.keen@uws.edu.au 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/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT