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

From: Ian Hunt (ian.hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 22:49:59 EST

Dear Jerry,
As you say, it depends on what 'superintendence' means. I also agree
that a bit of hyperbole is involved in the claim that the idea of
unproductive labour of superintendence has 'nothing to do with' Marx,

>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].

Associate Professor Ian Hunt,
Dept  of Philosophy, School of Humanities,
Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy,
Flinders University of SA,
Humanities Building,
Bedford Park, SA, 5042,
Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784

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