From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 23:45:26 EST
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> re 8182
>
>
> >On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:
> >
> >> Re Fred's [8159]:
> >>
> >> > Surplus-value can only be produced by wage-labor.
> >>
> >> This is an important area of agreement.
> >>
> >> > But then in Chapter 7, the magnitude of surplus-value is explained - by
> >> > the magnitude of surplus labor. The class relation by itself does not
> >> > explain the magnitude of surplus-value. The magnitude of surplus-value
> >> > can only be explained by the further theory presented in Chapter 7, which
> >> > is summarized by the above equation.
> >>
> >> As we've discussed before, the magnitude of surplus-value can be
> >> determined with the equation S = m (L - Ln) subject to certain *assumptions*
> >> ("givens"); once the assumptions are dropped (i.e. when what has been
> >> posited initially as given is no longer given but is systematically explored
> >> and developed), then the calculation of magnitude becomes more complex.
> >>
> >> In solidarity, Jerry
> >
> >
> >Jerry, the subsequent determination of constant capital and variable
> >capital does not change their magnitudes. Rather, the given magnitudes
> >(which remain unchanged) are explained at a later stage of the
> >theory. And the subsequent determination of C and V also does not change
> >the basic equation
> >
> > S = m (L - Ln)
> >
> >Nor do any of the magnitudes in this equation change. What changes is a
> >more complete explanation of the initial givens.
> >
> >Comradely,
> >Fred
>
> For none of the magnitudes to change, the following has to be true:
>
>
> (1)"The value transferred to the product by constant capital is then
> given, not as the labour time embodied in its components, but as the
> labour time represented by the money paid for it, being its money
> price multiplied by the value of money or divided by the monetary
> expression of labor time" (Alan Freeman, Alejandro Ramos, Fred M).
>
> (2)if this is so, Marx's talk of double divergence has to be--as
> Allin long ago recognized, and I came to understand much
> later--gibberish and logically incoherent and should in effect be
> ignored.
>
> Rakesh
Rakesh, as I have argued before, I think you should ignore it. There are
only two brief passages in which Marx states that there are "two reasons
for the divergence" between value and price of production.
On the other side of the textual ledger, there are a dozen or so passages,
documented in my papers and previous OPEL posts, which directly contradict
these two passages, because they state that the "cost price is the
same" for both the value and the price of production of commodities, which
implies that there is only ONE reason for the divergence between value and
price of production - profit not equal to surplus-value.
I think Marx simply misspoke in the two "double divergence" passages, and
did not realize that he was conflating a simple meaning of value from
Volume 1 with a more complicated meaning of value from Volume 3.
Rakesh, I don't want to get into this subject right now, since it is a
large subject and would take some time, but I would be happy to return to
this subject in the spring sometime, if you wish. If so, please let me
know when would be a good time for you.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 19 2002 - 00:00:01 EST