Forgive me Fred, but sometimes when I read what you say is Marx, I wonder
whether we're talking about the same author.
(1) The following two tables are taken from Vol III. In both of them, the
ratio S/V is the same in all industries--an assumption to which you object.
Well maybe, but Charlie did make it. I don't see how you can casually drop
it, and then claim you're not modifying Charlie:
Kap III: 57
Capital Labour Surplus-value Total output
Old 100 20 10 130
New 90 30 15 135
Kap III: 157.
Capitals
Constant Variable R.S.V. S.V. Product R.P.
I 80 20 100 20 120 20%
II 70 30 100 30 130 30%
III 60 40 100 40 140 40%
IV 85 15 100 15 115 15%
V 95 5 100 5 105 5%
Sum 390 110 100 110 610 22%
"RSV" in that table is the ratio S/V, which from recollection Marx assumed
constant ACROSS INDUSTRIES in every example he ever gave (bar one, where he
was playing with the possibility I have followed up, that "the use value of
the machine significantly greater than its value; i.e.
that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to
its increasing effect on production" Grundrisse: 383).
Now if you drop the assumption that S/V is constant across industries, then
you don't have a transformation problem, for sure. But you also don't have
a labor theory of value.
(2) "Proportional to" does not mean "1:1": it means "always in the same
ratio", whether that is 1:1 as in Marx's examples above, or 2:1, or
1200:37. As you define it, your own argument is inconsistent, since from
S=m.Ls, you would only have "proportionality" as you just used the term if
m=1. I presume that's not what you mean.
Steve
At 11:52 PM 10/7/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote:
>
>> Subject: [OPE-L:4006] Re: Re: Re: Surplus value or surplus argument?
>>
>> When I said that surplus value is proportional to necessary labor, I meant
>> that in the labor theory of value the ratio S/V is taken as constant.
>
>Do you mean (as I take from your next sentence) that the ratio S/V is
>taken as constant ACROSS INDUSTRIES? If so, I don't see this as a
>necessary assumption (see more on this below). But in any case, the
>constancy of the rate of surplus-value across industries does not imply
>that surplus-value is proportional to NECESSARY labor. Surplus-value is
>proportional to SURPLUS labor. Surplus-value would be proportional to
>necessary only if the rate of surplus-value (S/V) were = 1. So I am still
>puzzled about why you say that surplus-value is proportional to necessary
>labor.
>
>
>
>> If your key equation is instead
>>
>> S= m.L - V
>>
>> then I don't see how you can maintain a constant rate of surplus value
>> across industries. Therefore if this equation is made pivotal, I think you
>> have a rather different theory to the one Marx set out.
>
>
>The equation
>
> S = mL - V
>
>is an equation for the total economy as a whole, not for individual
>industries. For the analysis of the total economy, it doesn't really
>matter whether the rate of surplus-value is constant or not. But just to
>clarify, could you please explain more why you think that this equation
>makes it difficult to "maintain a constant rate of surplus-value across
>industries."
>
>And my main point remains: according to my interpretation, surplus-value
>is proportional to surplus labor.
>
>
>Comradely,
>Fred
>
>
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
Australia
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EST