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

From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 21:38:30 EST

Hi Ian:

I did not intend to revisit the entire debate on the wages of
superintendence.  My only point is that the suggestion that
supervisory labour under capitalism is unproductive "has
nothing to do with Marx" is manifestly false.  Jurriaan and
others are free to disagree with the suggestion that the
wages of superintendence are best conceived of as a deduction
from surplus value (or, as a second option, as faux frais of production),
but please don't  suggest that it is merely a "formalistic Marxism"
and "has nothing to do with Marx".  I, of course, grant that other
interpretations of Marx, citing other writings, are possible, but to
reject a position as having "nothing to do with Marx" when there
is evidence to the contrary is a bit much.

In solidarity, Jerry

Jurriaan wrote:
> But (i) the notion that supervisory labour is necessarily "unproductive"
> is  a formalistic Marxism, which has nothing to do with Marx.

JL wrote:
> >Don't you recall the following?
> >"...the wages of superintendence do not enter [into the] average rate of
> >profit at all". [TSV, Part III, Progress ed., p. 505].

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST