[OPE-L:5629] Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx's theory as a quantitative theory

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun May 20 2001 - 09:39:53 EDT


Nicky, thank very much for your interesting post (5625).  A question of
clarification below.


I had written in my previous post:

> >Marx presented his theory of the magnitude of surplus-value in Chapter 7
> >of Volume 1.  In Chapter 7, it is certainly true that, when Ls = 0 hours,
> >then S = 0 shillings, and when Ls = 6 hours, then S = 3 shillings.  More
> >generally, the magnitude of surplus-value is determined by the magnitude
> >of surplus labor, as represented by the equation:
> >
> >	S = m Ls
> >
> >as I have discussed.  Marx's logic in this chapter certainly seems to
> >assume a CAUSAL LINK between surplus labor and surplus-value.


You replied:

> I don't agree.  


Nicky, what exactly do you disagree with: (1) with my interpretation of
Marx's logic in Chapter 7, which assumes a causal link between surplus
labor and surplus-value; or (2) (accepting my interpretation of Marx's
logic) you disagree with Marx's logic itself in Chapter 7?  It is not
clear to me which one of these you disagree with, and you seem to waver
between the two.

You say in the next paragraph that "ideal precommensuration" implies that
form determines content in capitalism, rather than the other way
around.  Does this mean that prices determine labor-time, rather than the
other way around?  Are you suggesting that this is a different
interpretation of Marx's logic in Chapter 7, or that this is a different
logic from that which Marx presented in Chapter 7?  

In the following paragraph, you seem to accept my interpretation of Marx's
logic in Chapter 7 (that there is a causal link between surplus labor and
surplus-value), but then argue that Marx's logic "gets in the way" of a
form-determined theory of capitalism, and that Marx's logic is based on
"dubious simplified assumptions".  In other words, accepting my
interpretation of Marx's logic, you reject Marx's logic itself, as
presented in Chapter 7.

Would you please clarify which of these you disagree with?  Thanks very
much in advance.  I look forward to further discussion.

Comradely,
Fred



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT