Re: [OPE-L] Marx on the 'maximum rate of profit'

From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Tue Oct 31 2006 - 03:39:20 EST

What if the capitalists pay themselves a wage for their
labour of supervision which is distinct from their profit?

Quoting Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG>:

> Hi Ajit
> > No. There is no logical problem with Sraffa's
> > accounting
> Applied to simple reproduction Sraffa's labour-cost accounting assumes
> zero capitalist consumption during the period of replacement.
> Therefore, it does not measure replacement costs for an economy with a
> capitalist class. It applies only to simple commodity production. This
> is "the elephant in the room".
> In contrast, real-cost labour values, of which Sraffian labour values
> are a special case, does calculate the correct replacement costs in
> both cases (simple commodity production and simple reproduction).
> Simply stating "there is no logical problem" does not get to grips
> with my critique.
> > and it is not different from Marx's accounting of labor-values.
> Who mentioned Marx?
> > I hope you would agree
> > that logically two accounting systems cannot exist:
> > one for simple reproduction and another for expanded
> > reproduction.
> Now at which point did you demonstrate that real-cost accounting
> differs in these cases? You are relying on this point, but without an
> analysis of real-cost accounting applied to proportionate growth it is
> mere assertion.
> > Now both Sraffa's and Marx's accounting
> > system remain the same in both the systems so at least
> > they are logically consistent on this score. You have
> > not been able to apply your accounting system to
> > expanded reproduction situations,
> How can you claim that?
> I'm concentrating on simple reproduction, not because real-cost
> accounting fails to apply to expanded reproduction, but because I want
> you to admit there is a problem with simple reproduction before moving
> to the next stage.
> Are you unwilling to discuss simple reproduction because you realise
> the force of my critique in this case?
> > the onus is on you to prove that your system is not logically
> inconsistent.
> Isn't the onus on you to refute my claim that your labour-cost
> accounting is incorrect in the case of simple reproduction? To
> paraphrase Steedman, if the approach fails to hold in this special
> case what reason is there to think it will hold in more general cases?
> And remember -- the TP debate has traditionally been held in the
> context of Sraffian models of simple reproduction (not expanded
> reproduction).
> Best wishes,
> -Ian.

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 02 2006 - 00:00:03 EST