The careful reader will note that Tom provides no answers. Rather he says the questions themselves mistakes. So I'll put these directly to our self-proclaimed Sandwichman
1. How does the productivity of labor, increased material output in the same or reduced time, increase the rate of surplus value given the fact that no additional new value is created, nor is the rate of new value created has not change? 2 hours is 2 hours whether 50 mousetraps or 100 mousetraps are the result. How does the change in output change the rate of surplus value? See: https://anticapital0.wordpress.com/the-relativity-of-surplus-value/ for Marx's irresolution of this contradiction of "bourgeois political economy." 2. What is the contradiction between the labor-time theory of value and the "intensity of labor" in bourgeois political economy? How is Marx's intensity of labor as a determinant of value different than that of political economists. How does Marx measure "intensity" to determine the "norm" and thus provide a base for variation in the amounts of value? 3. How is it possible for the law of value to apply to the exchange of commodities only in the "prehistory" of industrial capitalism, before labor itself is forced to exist as a commodity whose value to the workers exists only in its exchange-ability with the value of the means of subsistence necessary for its reproduction? See Marx's comment: > > The exchange of commodities at their values, or at approximately these > values, thus corresponds to a much lower stage of development than the > exchange at prices of production, for which a definite degree of > capitalist development is needed… > Apart from the way in which the law of value governs prices and their > movement, it is also quite apposite to view the values of commodities not > only as theoretically prior to the prices of production, but also as > historically prior to them. This applies to those conditions in which the > means of production belong to the worker, and this condition is to be > found, in both the ancient and the modern world, among peasant proprietors > and handicraftsman who work for themselves. This agrees, moreover, with > the opinion we expressed previously, viz. that the development of products > into commodities arises from exchange between different communities, and > not between the members of one and the same community. This is true not > only for the original condition, but also for later social conditions > based on slavery and serfdom, and for the guild organization and > handicraft production, as long as the means of production involved in each > branch of production can be transferred from one sphere to another only > with difficulty, and the different spheres of production therefore relate > to one another, within certain limits, like foreign countries or > communistic communities. Volume 3, p. 277-278 > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#35035): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35035 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111037083/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
