> >for Marx, the mechanism for equalizing rates of exploitation was > >Smith's "compensating wage differentials." That theory is wrong, but > >then again, rates of profit never fully equalize either.
michael a. lebowitz wrote: > more like free mobility of workers will lead to equalisation of wage > per workday; that's not enough for equal rates of surplus value, > though, unless the relation of productivity to the wage is equal... > and what can yield that? I don't know how the RSV gets equalized exactly. However, the point of the whole exercise (as I understand it) is to show how prices differ from values in the real world of capitalism. The constant RSV between sectors is supposed to represent similar levels of class struggle, as I understand it. Mike had written: > > > And assumptions about labour mobility, worker strength, > > > etc? Truly little else but tautological identities masquerading as theory! me: that's why I wrote: > > >>Of course, these exercises are almost (if not completely) tautological. What's important is the political economy behind the determination of the OCCs and the RSVs.<<<< Mike: > agreed, you are not especially guilty--- although I don't know what > you mean in the case by 'political economy'. Class struggle? it's class struggle (and also intraclass conflicts) from the perspective of the participants, while it's political economy from the perspective of the political economist (me). -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
