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

From: Philip Dunn (hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK)
Date: Sun Jan 13 2008 - 12:03:52 EST

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:54 +0100, Dave Zachariah wrote:
> I urge you to read the article, to get the full argument. However, using
> the simple example of reproduction schemes I hope you can see that it is
> evident:
> Let Department I produce the means of production, Department II produce
> workers' consumption and Department III produce all the rest. Let P, W
> and M denote profits, wages and material costs of production
> respectively. Then for
>     Department III   |   Total profits
>     M3 + W3 + P3 <= P1 + P2 + P3
> Or, M3 + W3 <= P1 + P2. Production in Department III cannot take place
> unless the flow of profits from the other Departments are directed to it
> instead of accumulation.
I read the article some time ago. By fiat, it is possible to define
Department III as unproductive. It would also be possible to define it
as wholly productive. I doubt if the question can be decided in an a
priori fashion. My taste is to regard as much as possible as productive
unless a very good reason can be given for thinking otherwise.

For example, I would treat advertising as a non-wage cost much like any
other. Others would see it a deduction from surplus value. How can you

The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.

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