[OPE-L:5638] Re: the division of labor in a dialectical systematic theory of capitalism?

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 04:23:20 EDT

Jerry wrote in 5364:

>In 5632 Ajit wrote:
>>  The problem is simple: how do you deal with the
>>  means of production part of the commodity in its
>>  exchange?
>Reuten-Williams after an answer to that problem
>in _Value-Form and the State_, pp. 68-71. In
>brief, from their perspective the magnitude of the
>value transferred  from the means of production is
>determined by the *current value*  (or what R/W
>call the *current ideal value*) of the m of
>p rather than the historical value (historical costs).
>On this point, see 9c (71) and note 6 (69).

Jerry, by determining social value of the means of production as the 
cost of reproduction at the time the output is sold,  both VFT (it 
seems) and TSS (especially Carchedi) seem to be at odds with the neo 
Ricardian attempt to compute labor contents of physical inputs 
through the reduction of dated quantities of labour (Carchedi, p. 
96-7). I don't see however how this answers Joan Robinson's and 
Ajit's challenge that the  current ideal value cannot any more than 
the embodied labor value of of the means of production be determined 
without commodity residue.

Then it gets more complicated. Fred himself underlines that the value 
of the used up means of prod is not the same as the value of the 
money needed to buy the used up means of production at current costs; 
but he argues that the value transferred by the working from the 
means of production is determined by the latter, not former, 
magnitude. If I understood Andrew K, he is arguing that the value of 
the means of production *is* the value of the money that was needed 
to buy them at historical costs, and this is the value which is 
transferred by the working class to the output.

So Ajit has a couple of answers to his question about how the means 
of production part of commodities is dealt with in exchange to choose 
from among mumbo jumbo speaking Hegelians.

So it would seem however that by dealing with the value of means of 
production of the commodity in monetary terms, both Fred and Andrew 
can sidestep any problem in determining the  labor value of the means 
of production themselves without commodity residue. This option is 
not open to me.

 From her piece in the Jesse Schwartz, ed Subtle Anatomy of 
Capitalism, Robinson  seems to think that the net physical output can 
be determined easily, but I think Alan F and Andrew K have raised 
sharp objections to this.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT