[OPE-L:3355] Re: Marxian Emprical Research (skilled labor)

Iwao Kitamura (ikita@st.rim.or.jp)
Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:37:58 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Pease forgive me about this out-dated reply.
To other posts by Allin and Steve concerning skilled labor,
I will respond as soon as I can.

>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Iwao Kitamura wrote:
>> The problem I pointed is rather purely theoretical. Is training
>> [1] a production of use value that adds value creating power
>> to simple labor-power or
>> [2] just adds (transfers) its value to labor-power?
>I go for [2]. "Adding value-creating power to simple
>labour-power" seems to make "value-creation" into a strange
>metaphysical process. What matters is the _total_ direct
>plus indirect labour-time required to produce things. If
>the production of X requires specially trained labour, one
>has to count the indirect contribution of both the teacher
>and the trainee expended in acquiring the skill, besides the
>direct labour-time of the skilled worker.

I don't think "what matters is the _total_ direct plus indirect
labour-time required to produce things" leads to [2]. This
notion, which I also believe, derives [2] only if we recognize
training as intermediate input and ignore its side of use-value.
To my thought, use-value and exchange value of traning/education
are "consumed" when it is done (reproduction process of labor-power).
The value creating power of skilled labor is to be determined by
various social backgrounds that can change over time.

in solidarity,