Re: Unequal exchange (long)

Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:11:54 +0200
Alejandro Rivero (arg19@tid.es)

Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998, Alejandro Rivero wrote:
> > Still, I'd like to hear more about this issue of "surplus labour as
> > origin of capital accumulation", even after reading the long posting
> > from Andy, it seems to me a combination of two mistakes.
>
> Only when such activity produces more than it consumes does surplus arise.

"produces more than it consumes" implies you are able to compare two
quantities. You can say "produces more energy than it consumes", or
"produces more grain than it consumes", but no "produces more apples
than the meat it consumes".

To solve this you can say "produces more capital than
it consumes", and then you have a consistent definition of surplus.
Only that it is circular, as your capital is built (defined) in terms
of surplus. Of course there is also an abstract definition of
capital, but no proof about if it is actually a measurable concept,
which you need in order to use the word "more". Of course money
is measurable per se, but capital is not.

> > Actually, I can imagine systems where additional labour drives the owner
> > to benefit loss, due to the offer/demand mechanism.
> > So "surplus" labour, if it exists, is different of additional labour.
> > Similarly, I can imagine porcess where an actual decrease of labour time
> > would increment owner benefits, so "surplus" labour could be less
> > labour!
>
> Yes, a decrease of labor time in absolute terms may benefit the owner,
> e.g., by raising the productivity of labor. But this does not mean that

OR by the offer/demand mechanism. The whole point is that the benefit
of the owner is not linearly related to any measurable quantity
attached to labour.

> Capital interacting with itself does produce more capital. This is the
> reason we talk in terms of self-expansion. But there must be different
> sorts of capital at work, namely, the mix of fixed and variable capital,
> for capital to expand. It is in the variable capital invested that more
> (surplus) can be produced than was invested.

I like this concept of "expanding" capital, from there it is clear that
no conserved object lies under it, and then you dont need the concept
of surplus to make capital to increase. But I don't understand the need
of "fixed" and "variable" capitals, perhaps it is only a trick to
restore again the need of "surplus"?

> Btw, what were the two mistakes you thought I made?

(no "I", but "we" :-)

Well, one of them was the source of capital, I see it is solved
by including the so-called "expansion".

The other one bas the use of "surplus". And, from your explanation,
I think that it is more a rhetorical word than a real point of
the theory. I think you use "surplus labour" as a synonym
of "labour", at least it seems that your whole answer can be formulated
without this adjective. Probably "necessary" amd "surplus" were two
good buzzwords for revolutionary propaganda, but no more.

Generically, the main problem I see in this focus is that it seems to
imply that the whole production under socialism must be, at best, of the
same
order that under capitalism. From here, one deduces that the only goal
is redistribution, making the standards of living of some "families" to
fall down.

With the marxist "language", it seems a difficult task to proof that
socialism would be in fact more productive that capitalism. For
instance,
is very difficult to show that destruction of capital is actually a
legitimate source of income for capitalists.

Yours,

Alejandro

> Thanks,
> Andy