Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox

From: Simon Mohun (s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2008 - 16:10:31 EST

I too don't see what the problem is.
Value added in money terms = total wages + total profits
Total wages = Productive wages + unproductive wages
Total surplus value in money = Unproductive wages + total profits
These are not equations but accounting definitions. No causality is
expressed. But the three relationships are not inconsistent.


Jerry Levy wrote:
> Ironically, the same authors who argue that the wages of unproductive
> workers are a "deduction from surplus value" (which is actually
> literally an expression Marx uses in his manuscript) include those
> wages as a portion of surplus value, in their social account of gross
> product (e.g. Shaikh & Tonak, Moseley).  From a mathematical
> point of view, this does not make much sense, since - at least  as
> far as I know - a deduction cannot be an addition at the same
> time; that's a mathematical error. .......................
> Hi Jurriaan:
> Sorry, you lost me.  Assume for the moment that there is a given
> amount of surplus value. If the wages for unproductive are paid out
> of s, then why is there an addition at the same time?  If u goes up,
> that would mean that the quantity of s which can be redistributed
> among capitalists or further 'deducted' by the state has gone down,
> not up.  If there is a 'paradox' it is that if u represents a
> deduction from s then they have an incentive to reduce u to the
> minimum.  But, to the contrary, u has increased markedly in late
> capitalism. This paradox can be explained with reference to
> competition, though: i.e. even if from the standpoint of capitalists
> as a whole u represents a deduction from s it has nonetheless become
> a customary and competitively (and, in some cases, legally)
> 'necessary' expenditure from the standpoint of capitalist firms.
> In solidarity, Jerry


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST