Re: [ox-en] Re: What is profit?
- From: Stefan Meretz <stefan meretz.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:13:17 +0200
Hi Patrick,
it took me some time to come back to your considerations. Here we are:
On 2008-09-29 19:49, Patrick Anderson wrote:
Value addresses the amount of labour being
necessary to produce the product,
First of all, when you say "Value", do you mean "Exchange Value" or
"Surplus Value" or "Use Value" or something else?
Each of the four terms are categories, and each of them have a distinct
meaning. "Value" and "Exchange Value" are often mixed, but in a narrow
sense this is wrong. In this narrow sense "value" is a term of
production, while "exchange value" is a term of circulation, where the
"value" is realized.
My original understanding for measuring the "amount of labor" (though
I would say it is quantity*quality, not just 'amount') is simply
"Wage". So my first definition is:
1.) Wage == "Labor Value"
No. First, wage is a price term, while "labor value" is a value term.
These should not be mixed when taking it exactly. Ok, if you want to be
more rougly by equalizing price and value terms, then your assumption
is false too. Wage is not the price of labor value, but of the value of
labor _power_. Labor power is the potence of working, not the working
or the work itself. The capitalist buys this potence, because s/he
wants to determine what has to be done during production. If s/he want
to buy a final result, a "work", then s/he buys a product, a commodity
in its final form. However, this is not so interesting, because simply
buying and selling products ("trading") does not generate any value, it
only realizes value.
This says that workers already receive as much value as they add to
the product in the form of the wages they are paid.
No. See above. S/he receives less, and the difference is the surplus
value.
I say this because I think the worker is being exploited as a
Consumer through overpriced product, not as a Worker through
underpriced wage.
No. An "overpriced product" is a product, where the price is above its
value (exchange value > value) due too special circumstances at the
given place. This is not the "normal" case to be explained here.
But I doubt that is what you are saying. More likely you are talking
about the "Labor Theory of Value" which states that all "Surplus
Value" occurs because of value of labor added in production, so, if
that "Value" is "Surplus Value", and if it is also-known-as "Profit",
we have:
2.) Profit == "Value" == "Surplus Value"
Are these three terms identical? I think so.
No. The value of a commodity is the sum of the value of the constant
capital, the value of the labor power or variable capital, and the
surplus value.
Profit (rate) is surplus value related to the invested capital (constant
plus variable capital).
Now, I assume the "Labor Theory of Value" allows the worker to also
receive the Wage they are already being paid, so our next definition
(which conflicts with definition #1) is:
3.) "Labor Value" == Wage + Profit
No, see above.
I do not agree with this assertion which seems to be saying the
worker should be paid a wage, and should also receive any "Surplus
Value" that occurs at the point-of-sale.
I agree. This is not possible, because it contradicts the basic
principle of equivalent exchange. Wage pays the labor power, because it
is its equivalent price (assuming the societal average).
However, the idea to obtain the surplus value is very old, and it recurs
again and again. We had this debate in the ox-list coming with the
"copyfarleft" proposal.
price addresses the amount of
money the product achieves on the market when sold.
Yes, so:
"Consumer Price" == "Market Price"
Yes.
And, since "Consumer Price" is generally higher than "Owner Costs",
isn't the difference called "Surplus Value", or "Profit"? Isn't it
true that:
"Consumer Price" == "Owner Costs" + "Surplus Value"
Yes, if you take "owner costs" as described above (constant plus
variable capital). However, you can only explain this, if you
understand, that wage is the price of labor power (and not of labor).
And:
"Owner Costs" == "All costs of production" + Wages
Yes, constant plus variable capital plus wages paying the labor power.
So it looks to me that:
"Consumer Price" == "All costs of production" + Wages + Profit
No, you have to replace profit with surplus value. Profit already
includes "All costs of production" and "Wages". Here, you see, that
simply identifying profit with surplus value misleads you.
This seems so elementary, I don't understand the problem.
I hope, that I could show the problem.
I stop here, because the rest of your mail only repeats the problem
discussed above in various ways.
Ciao,
Stefan
--
Start here: www.meretz.de
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de