Jerry quoted me: > Paul also argues (and again I agree) that this sort of predictive > theory is needed to validate (or even make sense of) key points of > Marxist theory, such as the theory of relative surplus value. The > idea of relative surplus value is that capitalists pursue an > increase in surplus value by reducing the labour content of the > workers' means of subsistence. (snip, JL) And asked: "Suppose that output/working hour increases in that part of Department II that produces commodities that are solely consumed by capitalists while output/working hour remains constant in Dept I and the rest of Dept II. Is that an example of relative surplus value where the labor content of the workers' means of subsistence can remain unchanged?" I reply: It's not an example of relative surplus value. An increase in productivity of labour in Department III (that's what you mean?) gives the capitalists a larger volume of use values to enjoy with their profits, but it doesn't augment surplus value. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT