From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Nov 01 2006 - 21:38:30 EST
Hi Ian: I did not intend to revisit the entire debate on the wages of superintendence. My only point is that the suggestion that supervisory labour under capitalism is unproductive "has nothing to do with Marx" is manifestly false. Jurriaan and others are free to disagree with the suggestion that the wages of superintendence are best conceived of as a deduction from surplus value (or, as a second option, as faux frais of production), but please don't suggest that it is merely a "formalistic Marxism" and "has nothing to do with Marx". I, of course, grant that other interpretations of Marx, citing other writings, are possible, but to reject a position as having "nothing to do with Marx" when there is evidence to the contrary is a bit much. In solidarity, Jerry Jurriaan wrote: > But (i) the notion that supervisory labour is necessarily "unproductive" > is a formalistic Marxism, which has nothing to do with Marx. JL wrote: > >Don't you recall the following? > >"...the wages of superintendence do not enter [into the] average rate of > >profit at all". [TSV, Part III, Progress ed., p. 505].
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST