[OPE-L:8161] Re: Re: Re: Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 05:46:58 EST

Quoting "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu>:
 > > 
> > The problem Fred is to explain why wages do not rise so high as to
> > consume all of the product.
> Hi Paul.  Marx explained why wages do not rise so high as to eliminate
> profit in Section 1 of Chapter 25 of Volume 1 - because if wages rise high
> enough to start to threaten the existence of profit, then capital
> accumulation would slow down, unemployment would rise, and wages would
> fall.  
> As Marx put it:
> "As soon as this diminution [of surplus-value] touches the point at which
> the surplus labor that nourishes capital is no longer supplied in normal
> quantity, a reaction sets in: a smaller part of revenue is capitalized,
> accumulation slows down, and the rising movement of wages comes up against
> an obstacle.  The rise of wages is therefore confined within limits that
> not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also
> secure its reproduction on an increasing scale."  (C.I: 771)
I was not disputing that there is an explanation, I just think you
had misunderstood what people were asking you about.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:00:01 EST