Gil had written:
Yeah, Jim [i.e., me], but that assumes some sort of incomplete
contracting situation
so that capitalists can't contract for specific labor services. But I
take Walt's point to be: what if they can, as in the case where firms
engage outside contractors to perform specific tasks, and pay them if and
only if those specific tasks are performed? In that case, what would be
the value of the services thus transacted?
Paul P. replied and I agree that:
But here we are not talking about wage labour if you are purchasing a
specific good/service from an independent commodity producer.
Gil now says:
[N.B.: Not just any "independent commodity producer," but by assumption a
producer of [only] labor services.]
Paul:
In this case, the surplus is produced by the producer but is
appropriated by the contracting capitalists by unequal exchange.
Gil, now:
Yes, but from the standpoint of surplus value creation, they are
isomorphic [i.e., having similar appearance but having different origins].
That is, whatever the systemic conditions that make possible
"unequal exchange" in this scenario also make it possible for capitalists
to extract more labor from wage workers than is embodied in their wage
bundles. Let's take it a step further: given no contracting failures
(which is the assumption that motivated this thread),
if "no contracting failures" is what motivated the thread, how did
this thread continue so long? the assumption of "no contracting
failures" is absurd. Making that kind of assumption must reflect a
total ignorance of contract law. I'm pretty ignorant of that law, but
I know that perfect contracts cannot exist (in the real world, that
is, not in the imaginary world of Walras or Debreu or Roemer).
the previous cases
are also isomorphic to a scenario in which the workers in question,
instead of being hired by capital, instead "hire capital", i.e. borrow
money to finance production of new value, and yield surplus value to
capital in the form of the interest paid on the loan. *Given* perfect
contracting, the existence and magnitude of surplus value in all three
cases is explained by the same systemic conditions....
This refers to the Samuelson-Roemer theory (currently discredited), in
which workers being hired by the owners of capital goods is the same
as workers borrowing those capital goods from its owners. Given the
destruction of that theory, there's no point in going on.
Note: all of my comments above should be read as if prefaced by "On the
basis of the theoretical framework I'm working within" or something like
that. I think that framework is internally coherent and arguably
relevant, but its validity may be in the eye of the beholder.
It's not merely a subjective ("eye of the beholder") matter.
--
Jim Devine / "Socialist democracy is not a luxury but an absolute,
essential necessity for overthrowing capitalism and building
socialism." -- Ernest Mandel
