There's nothing wrong with the calculation. What's happened is that productive capital has spread from the "center" to the "periphery" (here, Haiti), so that the first type of surplus-value creation is occurring on almost a world scale.
------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: g kohler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 2:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] sweatshop surplus-value > > > further to the dicussion on surplus-value etc - and thanks for your > comments! - and using Jim Devine's expression (below) of > "pool of global > surplus-value", QUESTION: what does a worker in a sweatshop > factory in Haiti > contribute to the pool of *global* surplus-value (SV)? > > My example is from a labour education film. The women work in > a textile > factory in Haiti, making sweatshirts. The wage is 0.70 US > dollars per hour > (70 cents). One woman sows over 1,000 sweatshirts per day. > The factory is > owned and run by a local Haitian entrepreneur. The > sweatshirts are shipped > to the Disney chain in USA (and have a Mickey Mouse picture > in front). The > US retail price for one shirt is US$18.00. (When the workers > heard about > that price, they laughed in disbelief.) > > To make the example more precise, it would be nice to know > the wholesale > price that the Haitian entrepreneur receives when shipping > the shirts to > Disney. For argument's sake I assume that the wholesale price > FOB at the > Haitian border is one dollar per shirt. > > (a) calculation of SV within Haiti - > > (a1) materials - assuming 60 cents per shirt: 1000 * $0.60 = $600 > > (a2) labour in Haiti - 8 hours of labour @ $ 0.70 = $5.60 for the day > (overtime not paid). > > (a3) Haitian wholesale receipts FOB - 1000 * $1.00 = $1,000 > > (a4) SV Haitian side = a3 - a1 - a2 = $394.40 > > What is wrong so far? One woman receives $5.60 for the day > and produces $394 > of SV ? (From the film example, it was not clear whether the > 1000+ shirts > per day were sown by one woman or, perhaps, by two in > sequence, working as a > team?) > > (b) calculation of SV within USA - > > (b1) materials on entering USA (= a2 = products leaving Haiti > at wholesale > price) = 1000 * $1.00 = $1000 > > (b2) USA retail receipts 1,000 * $18.00 = $18,000 > > (b3) labour in USA - hard to say, I assume 33 percent of > retail price -- 1/3 > * $18,000 = $6000 > > (b4) SV US side = b2 - b1 - b3 = $ 11,000.00 > > What else is wrong so far? > > (c) global aggregation > > (c1) pool of global SV generated = a4 + b4 = $11,394 > (=SV Haitian side + SV USA side) > > The woman received $5.60 for the day and contributed $11,394 > to the global > pool of surplus-value. > > Grotesque. What is wrong with the calculation, or is it that > grotesque? > > Gernot Kohler > > > > in reply to: > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > =?utf-8?Q?RE=3A_=5BPEN-L=5D_Gernot_K=C3=B6hler_on_Man?= > > =?utf-8?Q?del/Brenner?= > > by Devine, James > > 08 November 2003 > > It seems to me that there are _three_ forms of surplus-value being > discussed. > > > (1) "standard" Marxian surplus-value, i.e., the excess labor > done beyond > that > > needed to cover the costs of hiring proletarians under the > capitalist mode > of > > production. > > > (2) the surplus-product of exploited direct producers in > other modes of > > production such as slavery and serfdom, which can be translated into > > surplus-value. Back in 1850, for example, a slave in the US > South produced a > > surplus-product which added to the pool of surplus-value of the global > > capitalist social formation. > > > (3) pure transfer: looting of the periphery, which adds to the value > > appropriated by the center and depletes value received by the > periphery at > the > > same time and by the same amount. There is no increase in the > global pool of > > surplus-value. > > > Obviously, these three are often hard to separate in the real > (empirical) > > world, but these abstract concepts help us understand that world. > > > As Doug notes, the question of how the surplus-value is > utilized is crucial. > > Paul Baran also asked this question. Because the three types > of surplus get > > mixed up, it's hard to come to a hard-and-fast conclusion, > but as a first > > approximation I'd say that > > > (1) the first type mostly goes to capitalist luxury spending and to > accumulate > > more fixed capital in the center, allowing the center to grow in power > relative > > to the periphery and the capitalists to grow in power > relative to the center > > proletariat. > > > (2) in the example of Southern US slave mode of production, > the part of the > > second type of surplus-value that wasn't transfered to the > center (and to > the > > capitalist mode of production) went to slaveowner luxuries and to the > > accumulation of slaves and land. It doesn't go to the kind of > technologically > > progressive industry that (1) goes to. This "progressive" is > defined in > > capitalist terms, so that eventually the slave mode of > production would have > > lost out to the capitalist mode of production in the > competition within the > > capitalist social formation. In the meantime, the slave mode > is dominated by > > the capitalist one within the social formation. > > > (3) the third type helps the center at the expense of the peripherty, > > reinforcing the internally-generated accumulation process of (1). > > > Jim Devine > > > > . . . snip> >
