From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 22:37:21 EDT
> > Re Fred's [7728]: > > > > > This demonstration of the reality of > > > exploitation behind the surface appearance of an equal exchange involves > > > the quantitative relation between the money value- added produced by > > > workers and the money wages they are paid, > > > > Involves, yes. > > > > > and therefore requires a > > > quantitative theory of value and surplus-value. > > > > At the risk of being accused of being picky, I would say rather that his > > theories of value and surplus value (necessarily) contain an analysis of > > both quality and quantity. In other words, it is not that Marx had a > > qualitative theory of value and surplus value and a quantitative theory > > of value and surplus value. Rather, the analysis of qualitative > relations > > is integrated with a quantitative analysis within a *unified theory*. I agree with this. > > I agree with your comments on "equality" (not shown above). I would > > add the following: through the assumption of equal exchange, Marx > > was able to show that surplus-value does not arise because of > > "cheating" on the part of some "bad" capitalists. In other words he > > rejected and implicitly critiqued in _Capital_ the liberal perspective > > that greed on the part of individual capitalists is the cause of > > exploitation. This was important to Marx for political reasons since > > if exploitation is due to cheating by some capitalists then it can at > least > > be potentially reformed away. In contrast, the theory of surplus value > > which ultimately holds that _all_ s and profit is based on class > > exploitation has clear revolutionary implications. I agree with this too.. > > > How could there be a > > > "qualitative" theory of class exploitation in capitalism without a > > > quantitative theory of class exploitation? I don't see why one of these > > > is primary and the other secondary. They seem to me to be the same > > > question. > > > > I am pleased to read that you now recognize that the "quantitative theory" > > is NOT THE PRIMARY QUESTION. Unlike [7723] -- where you asserted > > that the "primary question" is the question of surplus value which "is a > > quantitative question" and that "all that matters about surplus value is > > its quantity or magnitude" -- you now reject a perspective that holds > either > > the "quantitative theory" or "qualitative theory" to be primary. I am > > pleased that you have revised your prior statements. We are accordingly > > less far apart in terms of our interpretation of the theory of surplus > value > > than it appeared after [7723]. I agree again. Maybe I overstated my case before. And maybe you did too when you said that the quantitative question was a "secondary question". > > btw -- reading between the lines -- I am now pleased to read that > > you MUST reject the oft-stated perspective that VALUE-FORM > > THEORY DOES NOT HAVE A QUANTITATIVE THEORY > > OF SURPLUS VALUE. This MUST be the case since clearly VFT, > > in all shades and colors, incorporates an analysis of the MONEY-FORM, > > and hence MAGNITUDE, in its analysis of surplus-value. Hence > > the charge that for VFT surplus value is a "metaphor" must necessarily > > be rejected. Jerry, I don't really want to get into this right now, but a quick response: The fact that VFT incorporates analysis of the money-form, and hence magnitudes, does not necessarily mean that it has a quantitative theory of surplus-value. Marx's quantitative theory of surplus-value is expressed by the equation: S = m Ls. According to Marx's theory, the magnitude of Ls is assumed to be determined independently of S, and in turn to determine S. I don't think the VFT in general (there may be individual exceptions) accepts Marx's quantitative theory of surplus-value, because it does not accept the Ls is determined independently of S, as the "substance" of S. And I don't know of any other VFT that determines the magnitude of S. That's why I have said (and continue to say) that VFT in general has no quantitative theory that determines the magnitude of surplus-value. Please correct me if I am wrong. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 06 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT