[OPE-L:4389] Re: OPE-L 4351 Belated response

Michael_A._Lebowit (mlebowit@sfu.ca)
Sat, 15 Mar 1997 16:52:51 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, Ale; the remainder of my response to
your message will be in a response to alejandro b./mike

In message Tue, 11 Mar 1997 05:06:22 -0800 (PST), aramos@aramos.bo writes:

> Mike L (in ope-l 4335):
>> we
>> can say (as Marx did in the Grundrisse) that there is a limit to
>> surplus labour per worker--- the workday.

> What is the Grundrisse's reference you are mentioning?

One of his statements was, "The identity of surplus gain with surplus labour
time--- absolute and relative--- sets a qualitative limit on the
accumulation of capital, namely the *working day*, the amount of time out
of 24 hours during which labouring capacity can be active, the degree to
wich productive forces are developed, and the population, which expresses
thenumber of simultaneous working days etc" (Vintage, 375) Somewhere else
there I believe he also explicitly states the obvious, that the limit of
surplus labour per worker is the the work-day. It is significant that Marx's
development of the falling rate of profit argument in the grundrisse treats
the workday quite explicitly as well as the relationship between
productivity and surplus labour (and thus the rate of exploitation)--- in
direct contrast to the purely extrinsic treatment in Vol. 3 (which
establishes no relation between productivity and the rate of surplus value).
The Grundrisse model is set out in my "Marx's Falling Rate of Profit: A
Dialectical View, " Canadian Journal of Economics (May 1976)

in solidarity,
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C. Canada V5A 1S6
Office (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 872-0494; Home fax (with warning): (604) 872-0485
Lasqueti Island (250) 333-8810