Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:58:48 +0100 From: Jim <jim-AT-cag1.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-I: but everyone knew her as Nancy > >The problem, of course, is how can he be making more profit if he is paying >less for labor, which is supposed to be the source of surplus value? The >question, of course, is: where did the extra profit come from? > >Cheers, > >Nancy >> > I probably should not bother getting involved in this, but here goers anyway. It is the labour (labour power, actually) which produces value, and hence surplus value. It is not the act of paying for it. The lower the wages, other things being equal, the higher the profits. Itis simple arithmetic at that level. Marx makes the distinction between paid and unpaid labour time: the former is the necessary labour power expended equivalent to the wage, the former is the extra labour power the collective worker has to expend forthe privilege of being able towork at all. The value of a commodity is: c + v + s where c is the value of the constant capital used up in the production process (machines, raw materials and semi-finished inputs), v is the wage, and s is the profit. The about of labour power expended is equal to v + s There is only a condundrum if you mistakenly think that the amountof labour power expended is only v. Or, put differently, if you confuse the amount of labour power with its value. I do not know what things people have suggested you read, Nancy, but I would put them all on hold if I were you until you have spent the two hours necessary to grasp the marxist theory of exploitation (set out by Marx in Wage-Labour and Capital, and Wages, Prices and Profits). These are very simple texts, written for workers, not intellectuals. Maybe that is why intellectuals find them so hard to understand. For communism -- Jim Hillier Communist Action Group London --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005