From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 05 2002 - 07:55:28 EST
Re 7907: Hi Fred, Many thanks for your clarifications - and also for your interest in my own view. To proceed it would be useful to give the context for my interpretation. My own take on Vol. 3 and its relation to Vol 1 is set out in a couple of chs of my PhD (I'd very glady send you these). Regarding Vol 3, I believe my view is very similar if not identical to Alfredo's on the transformation and Ben Fine's on the TRPF (though they may well disagree with me on this). Alfredo's exposition in his book of the TCC, OCC, VCC is a good starting point for this interpretation. What I do in the PhD chs is offer a detailed interpretation of the first 7 chs of 'Capital', vol. 1, on value and surplus value, which is more or less compatible, and indeed attempts to illuminate, the above mentioned interpretation of volume 3 (but I have no idea if Alfredo or Ben F. agree with my interpretation or not). > > I am not sure what you mean here by the "causal process or mechanism" > or "social process" that "establishes" the proportionality between > surplus-value and surplus labor. Could you please clarify and perhaps > give an example of what you mean by such a "causal process or > mechanism" that could "establish" the proportionality between > surplus-value and surplus labor. Or are you suggesting that this is > impossible? By 'social process' I have in mind simply the relations of production. Fuedal relations entail certain social tendencies and outcomes. Capitalist relations entail different tendencies and outcomes. For example, capitalism entails rapid development of the productive forces whereas feudalism does not. In my view, the task of Marx's 'Capital' is to uncover the specific social relations of capitalism, the tendencies and outcomes (in other words, the laws of motion) entailed necessarily in these relations. The process of theory development very early on (first few chs of Vol 1) reveals that there is, on the one hand, labour time and, on the other hand, there is price. The two are not immediately identical qualitatively, even though the latter is the form of appearance of the former. On my interpretation, Vol. 1 estabilshes that the social relations specific to capitalism necessarily entail, or include, exploitation and accumulation. However, Vol 1 by no means establishes proportionality between the respective immanent and external measures of value (and surplus value), neither in aggregate nor as regards individual values. That is, proportionality between surplus labour time and the monetary measure of surplus value is not established (nor could it be since this requires a theory of pricing, which cannot be developed until Vol 3 -- this is true for both aggregate prices and individual prices, in my view). So to summarise, by 'causal process' or 'mechanism' I am refering to the relations of production. I believe that Vol 1 has developed enough of a grasp of these relations in order to establish the existence of exploitation and accumulation in capitalism. But I do not believe it has established proportionality between the respective immanent and external measures of surplus value. OK. Let me go on to the other aspects of your post. I wonder if this next aspect is the key. You wrote: > > The basic assumption of Marx's theory is that each hour of average > social labor produces m amount of money new-value (e.g. 0.5 shillings > per hour in many of Marx's examples). This is where the > proportionality comes in - Marx's basic assumption. > Does this mean that, on your interpretation, the key to Marx's view is this *assumption* (or could I also call it a 'hypothesis'?) of proportionality between the appearance form of surplus value (its money measure) and its substance (surplus labour time)? Or more precisely, the key is the assumption you state above which, via the structure of givens you have clarified for me in your previous email, leads to proportionality between the substance and appearance form of surplus value. Does this mean, furthermore, that the way to evaluate Marx's argument, on your view, is via 'testing' the empirical predictions (to put it crudely) that arise from this fundamental assumption? What I have in mind is your discussion with Blaug, Steedman and others in the methodology collection that you edited and contributed to. Is your view that all theories make some or other 'assumptions' which form a 'hard core', to use Lakatos' terminology, a hard core not directly to be tested but rather to be evaluated in terms of the propositions in the 'protective belt' (to borrow again Lakatos' terminology for the sake of clarity)? If so, then we do disagree on the basic level of method. But, recognition of this fact might be a great step forward for further fruitful discussion! My apologies, however, if I am way off in trying to grasp your view - my attempted interpretation of your view is certainly speculative and I look forward to finding out how close I am! > > This total surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 is then taken > as given in Volume 3, and the magnitude of this total surplus-value > does not change as a result of the distribution of surplus-value in > Volume 3, as Marx stated many times. > > Andy, how is your interpretation compatible with Marx's many > statements on this key aspect of his logical method - that the total > surplus-value is taken as given in Volume 3 and does not change as a > result of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3? > Qualitatively, my interpretation fits exactly with these remarks. Quantitatively, it also fits exactly given that Marx is dealing with the OCC, rather than the VCC, which is a natural thing to do given Marx's theory that value is created in production and then gains appearance in exchange. At this stage, let me own up to a deficiency in my own knowledge: I pretty much stop after chapter 9 of Volume 3. After this ch. I rely on secondary literature, out of which I prefer Fine's exposition of the TRPF. What this means is that I am happy and able to debate 'what Marx really meant' in Vol 1 and up to and including ch.9 of Vol 3. But after that I'm not qualified! When I get the chance I'll read the rest! > > Andy, I am also not sure exactly what you are arguing about what MARX > did in regard to these questions. > > Please clarify, which of the following are you arguing (or something > else?): > > 1. Marx did NOT assume proportionality between surplus-value and > surplus labor in Volume 1. He did assume it but only for convenience. The assumption is innocuous such that it can be dropped without any affect on his theory. What cannot be dropped is the view that there is a systematic relationship between labour time magnitude and price magnitude. Proportionality is a very simple systematic relationship but not the only form of systematic relationship. > > 2. Marx did assume proportionality between surplus-value and surplus > labor, but - > > - two variations: > > a. Marx did not explain the causal process or mechanism that > establishes this proportionality in Volume 1, but he did explain this > causal process or mechanism after Volume 1. (If so, then where?) > > b. Marx did not explain the causal process or mechanism that > establishes this proportionality at all, ever, in any volume of > Capital. My view is neither a nor b. My view is that he established in Vol. 3 that proportionality does obtain when working at the level of the OCC. But this means also that it does not obtain when working at the (more concrete) level of the VCC. It means, further, that there is a systematic but non-proportional relationship between labour time magnitude and price magnitude, at the level of the VCC. Sorry to bore you with my own (undoubtedly idiosyncratic) view -- should you be interested I'd be more than delighted to send you my PhD chs. But I am anxious to see how close I am to grasping your own interpretation. Many thanks indeed, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 08 2002 - 00:00:01 EST