[OPE-L:2234] Re: New Solution

akliman@acl.nyit.edu (akliman@acl.nyit.edu)
Wed, 15 May 1996 14:32:52 -0700

[ show plain text ]

a reply to Simon's 2222:

RTFM is computer/net jargon for "read the f--ing manual" (I meant it as
a joke, referring to _Capital_).

I have no substantive problem if Simon wants to call the actual wage
paid the value of labor-power. But this wage can be more or less than
what is needed to reproduce the working class, which is how *value* of
labor-pwer is usually used. My only point was that whether workers are
paid a wage that reproduces their labor-power exactly, or more, or less,
the variable capital is the sum paid out in wages.

Yes, I think Marx says surplus-value is equal to the value of output minus
the sum of money (or labor-time) paid for wages and for used-up means
of production. I do *not* think he said surplus-value is equal to
the value of output minus the value of means of subsistence and value of
used-up MP, or even the value of output minus actual wages and used-up

In any case, if you want to talk about my understanding of constant
capital, this isn't the way to do so. Marx holds that the magnitude of
s is *determined* by the excess of living labor extracted over variable
capital. Since you and I agree about how the magnitude of living
labor extracted and variable capital are measured, there is no real issue

Is my interpretation "forced"? It removes alleged logical inconsistencies
in Marx's theory. So it makes sense of the text. Something is wrong
with interpretations that cannot do so.

Andrew Kliman