Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Jun 17 2006 - 20:08:35 EDT

Hi Paul

> The point is that Smith had an ambiguity between defining the value
> of corn as the labour required to produce corn or the labour commanded
> by corn. If there is no 'profit of stock' then the two are the same,
> but clearly in an economy with capitalist exploitation they differ.

No. Simplifying, exploitation is unpaid labour-time: the money wage
isn't sufficient to buy the whole net product. An equality in
equilibrium between labour-embodied and labour-commanded doesn't imply
that workers can buy the whole net product. In Sraffa's surplus
representation and its circular flow representation the money wage
only covers workers' consumption.

Best wishes,

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT