From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 09:00:58 EDT
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > Re Fred's [7779]: > > > If there is no difficulty in the sale of commodities, then the actual > > total surplus-value determined after sale is equal to the total > > surplus-value determined in production, right? In other words, in this > > case, the total surplus-value determined in production is the actual total > > surplus-value, and not a hypothetical total surplus-value proportional to > > the labor-time embodied in surplus goods, as in Riccardo's interpretation. > > I argue that Marx assumed throughout Volume 1 (and indeed generally > > throughout the three volumes) that there is no difficulty in the sale of > > commodities, so that the actual total surplus-value determined after sale > > is equal to the total surplus-value determined in production. > > Well, yes, one can make the *assumption* that the entire commodity > product is sold in which case the magnitude of surplus-value determined in > production will equal the magnitude of the surplus-value that is > actualized. Yet, so long as this is an assumption rather than a result, the > magnitude of *actual* surplus-value can not be taken to be the same as > the magnitude that emerges from production. But, I thought it was your > claim that the given surplus-value was the actual (vs. 'hypothetical') > magnitude of s. Both claims to me do not appear to be logically consistent > _unless_ this assumption is shown to be a result. Yet, nowhere in _Capital_ > that I know of has this emerged as a result rather than a presupposition. > > I guess that returns us to the question (that I asked you a number of years > ago): what is the meaning of "givens" in Marx's theory? If we take the > magnitude of s to be given by assumption we must show later in our analysis > (at a more concrete level of abstraction -- possibly as part of a > "post-Capital" analysis) that either what was presupposed has not been > demonstrated or that what was presupposed must be modified. Jerry, the magnitude of s that is taken as given in Volume 3 has already been determined in Volume 1. It does not have to be determined later; it has already been determined, by the quantity of surplus labor. Do you see what I mean? Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT