[OPE-L:1633] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technical change and real wages

Subject: [OPE-L:1633] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: technical change and real wages
From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Wed Nov 03 1999 - 00:19:03 EST

C. J. Arthur wrote:

> I am sorry to be so late raising this point. Mike L states that Marx's
> *Capital* assumes a fixed real wage. IMO this is not quite correct. It is
> certainly the Volume 1 assumption but in Volume 3 it is displaced by the
> assumption of a fixed rate of exploitation, both in the discussion of the
> average rate of profit and the falling rate of profit. It is important in
> the latter case to notice that with a fixed rate of exploitation and
> increasing labour producivty it necessaruily follows that the real wage is
> rising. Thus critics such as Okishio (and Brenner) who assume the real wage
> is fixed in Marx's discussion are way off beam.
> Chris Arthur


Chris, there is no basis for this "assumption" in Marx. What is the logic behind
the assumption that rate of surplus value will remain constant in the face of
technical changes? All Marx is doing is to suggest that *if* the rate of surplus
value remains constant then the implication of a rise in the organic composition of
capital is a fall in the rate of profits. I think it was because of Marx's
mathematical limitations that made him argue in this manner. Cheers, ajit sinha

> P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
> <cjarthur@waitrose.com>
> but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:13 EST