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

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Jun 19 2006 - 17:28:10 EDT

I agree that for both you and Sraffa the money wage
does not buy the whole product, but that sraffas
calculation of value is equivalent to ricardos, whereas
your definition of value gives the labour commanded by
a commodity : one of Smith's two definitions.

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Wright
Sent: 18 June 2006 01:09
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] workers' consumption and capitalists' consumption

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