Below, I wrote that in one treatment of the wages of unproductive labor-power, >> if S1 denotes the surplus value created by productive workers and if the rate of profit is stated as
r = (S1 + U)/(C + V) = [(S1/V) + (U/V)]/[(C/V) + 1] then an increase in (U/V) "does not not affect" the value of the numerator in the equation.<< As pen-l alumnus Jurriaan Bendien notes, I was wrong. The problem is that I unthinkingly assumed that the rise in U was totally compensated for by a fall in S1 (as some seem to assume), so that any increase in U/V was compensated for by a fall in S1/V. With this assumption, r is constant even though U is becoming more important. On Jan 28, 2008 9:10 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shane Mage wrote: > Marx makes it quite clear that the wages of > "socially necessary but unproductive" labor are paid out of [the > circulating portion of] constant capital. While to the individual > capitalist they appear to be a deduction from surplus value, to the > capitalist system as a whole they are part of the overall cost > structure. ... Thus, because these wages consist of part of the gross > product, the higher their share of the total wage bill the lower the > share of the gross product available to the ownership class for > consumption and investment, and accordingly the *lower* the rate of > exploitation.< > > Does it really matter? there are three ways of treating the wages of > unproductive labor-power (U) among Marxist political economists: (1) > as Shane says, U is part of circulating part of constant capital; (2) > U is part of variable capital (V); and U is part of surplus-value (S). > > Let the rate of profit r = S/(C + V) = (S/V)/[(C/V) + 1], ignoring > the role of fixed capital and differences in turnover time. Let the > rate of surplus-value, s = S/V. > > for (1), C becomes U + C1, where C1 is the physical input component of > constant capital. So the rate of profit becomes S/(U + C1 + V) = > (S/V)/[(U/V) + (C1/V) + 1]. A rise in U/V raises C/V and the > denominator of r and thus hurts it, holding (C1/V) and the numerator > constant. > > A rise of (U/V) also hurts the numerator, s = (Y - C1 - U - V)/V = > (Y/V) - (C1/V) - (U/V) - 1, where Y is total (gross) value. This > assertion works only if (C1/V) and (Y/V) are constant. > > In this view, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can be > counteracted by a rise in Y/V (what might be called the "value > productivity of productive labor") or a fall in C1/V. > > for (2), V is replaced by V1 + U, where V1 is the wages of productive > labor. The profit rate becomes S/(C + V1 + U) = (S/V1)/[(C/V1) + 1 + > (U/V1)]. A rise in U/V1 has exactly the same depressing effect on the > rate of profit as in #1, again holding the numerator and (C/V1) > constant. > > Again holding (C/V1) and (Y/V1) constant, the rise in (U/V1) also > hurts the numerator, the rate of surplus value = (Y - C - U - V1)/V1 = > (Y/V1) - (C/V1) - (U/V1) - 1. > > Just as for #1, the fall in the rates of profit and surplus-value can > be counteracted by a rise in (Y/V1) or a fall in (C/V1). It seems that > even though the concepts are different, #1 and #2 are mathematically > equivalent. Both treat U as part of costs. > > I guess you could get different results if you replaced (Y/V1) with > (Y/[V1 + U]), (C/V1) with (C/[V1 + U]), and (U/V1) with (U/[V1 +U]). > But these new ratios don't make as much sense to me. The whole idea of > "productive labor" says that we should care about the relative role of > C and productive labor and the value productivity of productive labor. > > (3) This is the version that Fred Moseley uses. In this case, S = S1 + > U, where S1 is the surplus-value produced by productive labor. The > rate of profit has to be restated as r = (S1 + U)/(C + V) = [(S1/V) + > (U/V)]/[(C/V) + 1]. > > In this case, a rise in (U/V) does not affect the denominator -- or > the numerator. So it has no effect at all on the rates of profit or > surplus-value. > > However, Moseley admits that what's important is the "conventional" > rate of profit, which treats U as a cost, not a benefit, to the > capitalist class. That gets us back to either #1 or #2. > > Where, then, does U matter? It might matter as part of the > accumulation process (as Adam Smith hinted it might). If capitalist > accumulation out of gross S goes to raise U rather than raising the > wage-bill for productive workers (V1) or expenditure on material > circulating capital (C1). If V1 doesn't rise very much, that limits > the mass of profits (= s times V1). If C1 doesn't rise very much, that > limits the rise of C1/V1 and thus the growth of the value-productivity > of productive capital. Either of these can hurt the long-term process > of accumulation, rather than simply being a matter of fiddling with > formulas. > > This last paragraph doesn't quite make sense to me, so any input would help. > -- > > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
