From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 15:42:57 EST
Dear Fred, For purposes of volume III we could take total surplus value as given, that is, for purposes of the analysis of its division, without this total surplus value being given from anywhere. In any case, conceptually at least, the analysis of its repartition between classes require abstracting from possible variations between total surplus value produced and total surplus value divided. This abstraction is what we mean by given. Well, this does not require restricting Vol I to the determination of a certain quantity of surplus value. In Marx own words his objectives seem to be a "little" broader than that: "In this work I have to examine the capitalist mode of production, and the conditions of production and exchange corresponding to that mode" International Publishers, 1967, p.8. And two pages later: "It is the ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society" (idem, p.10). How can the discovery of the law of motion be reduced to the quantitative determination of surplus value? Paulo "Fred B. Moseley" wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Christopher Arthur wrote: > > > Fred > > >> We have agreed that Marx's theory in Volume 1 is about > >> the total class relation between the capitalist class as a whole > >> and the working class as a whole. The most important aspect > >> of this relation is the production of surplus-value by workers > >> for capitalists. Therefore, it seems to me that Volume 1 is > >> about the total surplus-value produced by the working class > >> as a whole. > >> > >> How could it not be? How could Volume 1 be about the > >> total class relation between capitalists and workers and not > >> be about the total surplus-value produced by the working class > >> as a whole? > >> > > > > Hm. Pity Marx is not around so you cold ask him how he > > managed to discuss the capital relation for hundreds of pages > > without mentioning total SV. > > C > > But Marx did say explicitly in a number of places that his theory of > surplus-value in Volume 1 was about the total surplus-value, as I have > documented in my papers: > > 1. Chapter 5: "the capitalist class as a whole cannot defraud itself." > The same point is made in an earlier draft in the Manuscript of > 1861-63 > > 2. Chapter 11: the total surplus-value is equal to the surplus-value per > worker times the number of workers employed > The same point in earlier drafts in the Grundrisse and the > Manuscript of 1861-63 > > 3. Chapter 25: the effects of accumulation of the total social capital > on the working class as a whole. > > 4. The key outline of Volumes 1 and 3 at the end of the Manuscript of > 1861-63 in which Marx states that the quantitative conclusions of > Volume 1 "hold good for the total social capital". > > 5. Chris, you yourself pointed out to me this summer that Marx said in > two letters soon after the publication of the first edition of Volume 1 > that one of the two (or three) best points in his book is the "treatment > of surplus-value independently of its particular forms of profit, > interest, rent, etc." > > 6. Marx's theory of the division of the total surplus-value into these > individual parts is presented in Volume 3 of Capital. This theory of the > distribution of surplus-value takes as given the total amount of > surplus-value that is to be distributed. This total amount of > surplus-value that is taken as given in Volume 3 has already been > determined by Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. Where else > could the total surplus-value that is taken as given in Volume 3 be > determined, if not in Volume 1, where Marx's theory of surplus-value is > presented? > > Beyond that, perhaps Marx thought that it is obvious that, since this > theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is about the total class relation > between the working class as a whole and the capitalist class as a whole, > the individual capitals discussed in Volume 1 represent the total social > capital and the individual amounts of surplus-value represent the total > surplus-value produced by the working class as a whole. > > But I agree that Marx should have emphasized this important point more > clearly. > > Comradely, > Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 00:00:01 EST