Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2007 - 10:32:01 EDT

That solves it if you are looking at the matter empirically under
capitalism, and that indeed is the statistical approach I have used.

There is still the point though of how one calculates the input of
complex labour in a planned economy where all education costs are met by
the state. In those circumstances one can have an extended i/o table
that deals with production and consumption of different types of labour.

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of ajit sinha
Sent: 06 June 2007 13:37
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital

I think this prolem is similar to the problem of fixed
capital. The usual way of adding some presumed
depreciation of fixed capital to the value of net or
gross output introduces a spiritual element in the
calculation. It is a ghostly figure, which does not
have any material form. That's why Sraffa follows the
joint-production method in the case of fixed
capital--it is not to provide a better measure of
calculating the 'depreciation', but rather making the
calculation completely materialist by removing this
spiritual element from the calculation. Similarly, the
reduction of skilled to unskilled labor problem must
completely do away with the spiritual element. The
best way to do it is to define the unit of labor on
the basis of differences in wages. We can observe the
minimum wage and all the wages as well as hours of
labor spent in the production process. Simply multiply
the hours of labor with the differential of wages from
the minimum wage and you have solved the problem.
Cheers, ajit sinha

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

>  Anders:
> In my opinion the French version seriously
> weakens the textual support for the
> Hilferding/Okishio/Rowthorn "whose production has
> cost more labour" - that is the "education cost"
> solution to the labour reduction problem.
> Paul:
> Why do you think that?
> There is no coherent argument in the French edition
> against Hilferdings
> solution?
> Whether Hilferding was right or wrong stands on the
> merits of
> Hilferding's argument not on what Marx said, unless
> Marx makes a
> specific rebutall of the idea that the labour cost
> of educating workers
> enters into the labour cost of what these workers
> themselves produce. As
> far as I can see Marx makes no such contrary
> argument.

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT