This is not a reply to anyone in particular - Productive Forces --- P = (M + L) - R
Productive Potential = Means of Production plus Living Labour minus the Relations of Production Of course you need to divide the product by "N" (Consumption Needs) but I don't know how to do this in an email. Most things can be represented algerbraically which is not the same thing as being quantifiable. Greg Schofield Perth Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on receive. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ --- Message Received --- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:47:58 -0800 Subject: [PEN-L:23350] forces of production [was: RE: [PEN-L:23348] Re: RE: Question to Various comments in In Digest 77] Michael Perelman writes: > Marx's idea of social forces may be grounded more in common sense than in some deep theory. One other factors that I see in his understanding of the transition to socialism runs as follows: people will see the tremendous social forces (capabilities or potential) of capitalist production alongside the actual performance, leading to great dissatisfaction and a readiness to make a change.< right. BTW, I think that the pair of forces of production vs. the relations of production can be seen in volume I of CAPITAL's chapter on the labor process (ch. 7). The forces of production listed in section 1 on the production of use-values, while the relations of production are discussed in section 2 on the production of surplus-value. > I remain very skeptical of any attempt to give precise numerical calculations for any part of Marx's theory. Marx does use rough, back of the envelope, calculations from time to time. They seem appropriate.< quantification definitely seems a bad idea when it comes to the forces of production. > Recasting Marx in algebraic, mathematical, or precise numerical form, seems a bit foreign to his overall project, which his understanding the nature of capitalist society and the weaknesses that will lead to the creation of a socialist state.< I think that quantification makes sense in specifically macroeconomic or microeconomic contexts. Of course, Marx's theory crosses these boundaries, mixing economics with what's known as "sociology" these days. JD
