Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Fri Nov 28 2003 - 11:05:22 EST

At 22:14 27/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote:
> > At 23:24 26/11/2003 -0800, ajit wrote:
> > >  For you, real
> > >wages are a direct function of productivity (q). My
> > >point has been that for Marx the real wages are not
> > a
> > >function of productivity.
> >
> > Why? Why--- given that productivity increases lower
> > the value of wage goods?
>Good! so at least now you accept that, at least for
>you, there is a direct relation between labor
>productivity and real wages, because earlier you were
>denying making any such linkages. That's why I had to
>belabor on this point. The answer to your why question
>is that the fall in the value of wage goods due to
>productivity increases may have nothing to do with
>real wages.

Ajit, the question that I am asking is--- how could a fall in the values of
wage goods NOT lead to rising real wages? I'm looking for a rational
reconstruction of Marx's position. I think my position (which proposes that
the effect of the substitution of machinery on money wages is a
necessary--- although insufficiently acknowledged--- condition) is pretty
clear by now. What's yours? From your last posts, I'm beginning to think
that we are not in disagreement--- that we only disagree on what can be
found in Marx.
         in solidarity,

Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 30 2003 - 00:00:01 EST