Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2007 - 16:03:16 EDT

I agree that education has cultural advantages beyond its enhancement of peoples labour productivity, but if one is planning to industrialise a country for example, one has to plan to produce the different types of qualified labour that this will require with a consequent expansion of education. One also needs to know what types of education are going to be relevant dependent on the planned development of the economy. All of this will itself imply an allocation of social work time.

Paul Cockshott

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha
Sent: Wed 6/6/2007 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital
--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> That solves it if you are looking at the matter
> empirically under
> capitalism, and that indeed is the statistical
> approach I have used.
> There is still the point though of how one
> calculates the input of
> complex labour in a planned economy where all
> education costs are met by
> the state. In those circumstances one can have an
> extended i/o table
> that deals with production and consumption of
> different types of labour.
Of course, planning is a different problem. And again,
education cannot be looked at as something that only
produces "skilled labor". I think the economic
calculation of the value of labor would be almost
impossible. Cheers, ajit sinha
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On
> Behalf Of ajit sinha
> Sent: 06 June 2007 13:37
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French
> edition of capital
> I think this prolem is similar to the problem of
> fixed
> capital. The usual way of adding some presumed
> depreciation of fixed capital to the value of net or
> gross output introduces a spiritual element in the
> calculation. It is a ghostly figure, which does not
> have any material form. That's why Sraffa follows
> the
> joint-production method in the case of fixed
> capital--it is not to provide a better measure of
> calculating the 'depreciation', but rather making
> the
> calculation completely materialist by removing this
> spiritual element from the calculation. Similarly,
> the
> reduction of skilled to unskilled labor problem must
> completely do away with the spiritual element. The
> best way to do it is to define the unit of labor on
> the basis of differences in wages. We can observe
> the
> minimum wage and all the wages as well as hours of
> labor spent in the production process. Simply
> multiply
> the hours of labor with the differential of wages
> from
> the minimum wage and you have solved the problem.
> Cheers, ajit sinha
> --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:
> >  Anders:
> > In my opinion the French version seriously
> > weakens the textual support for the
> > Hilferding/Okishio/Rowthorn "whose production has
> > cost more labour" - that is the "education cost"
> > solution to the labour reduction problem.
> >
> > Paul:
> > Why do you think that?
> > There is no coherent argument in the French
> edition
> > against Hilferdings
> > solution?
> >
> > Whether Hilferding was right or wrong stands on
> the
> > merits of
> > Hilferding's argument not on what Marx said,
> unless
> > Marx makes a
> > specific rebutall of the idea that the labour cost
> > of educating workers
> > enters into the labour cost of what these workers
> > themselves produce. As
> > far as I can see Marx makes no such contrary
> > argument.
> >
> >
> ____________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
> list.

Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT