[ show plain text ]
First off, sorry, Fred for the tone of my posting. I never got your OPE
message where you acknowledged substituting "money" for "capital" in
Marx's text:
<You are right. Marx said the "capital that is turned into means of
<production." But capital has been defined as money, and what else is
<turned into, or exchanged for, means of production besides money?
I had presumed that your subsequent message was answering me by changing
the question (to which I wanted to bring you back to my observation).
If I have had received only the above, I would not have had something to
reply to, as I don't context that there is a circuit involved in the
realization of the production of surplus value.
Cannot we stay on p. 317 longer? You were correct to be reading that page
as that is where constant capital is defined.
Paul
*************************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, on OS/2 and supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> Did you miss my earlier post in which I acknowledged that "you are
> right" that I had misquoted the letter of Marx's definition of constant
> capital on p. 317? I argued that when Marx said "that part of CAPITAL
> that is turned into means of production," he meant "that part of the
> initial money-capital that is turned into means of production". Because
> capital had already been defined as "money that becomes more money" and
> because the "capital that is turned into [or exchanged for] means of
> production" is indeed money-capital? What else would it be? Plus, in
> this post I was responding to Rakesh and was in part referring to his
> language and his acceptance of my point that in Volume 1 constant capital
> is defined, as he put it, as the "money laid out in means of production."
>
> I will send another copy of this post to you separately. I lost track of
> the OPEL number of this first post. Please also note that my second post
> begins "this is a FURTHER brief reply ..."
>
> Now I hope you will consider p. 320 (and the rest of Chapter 9), in which
> constant capital is clearly and explicitly discussed in terms of money?
>
> More generally, if you don't think Volume 1 is mainly about money and
> prices (and especially dM), what do you think is the main subject of
> Volume 1? What are the main variables determined? What are the equations
> of determination?
>
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
>
>
> P.S. Please see my last post to Ajit for a response to your earlier
> question about Wages, Prices, and Profit.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:23:46
> > From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> > Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> > Subject: [OPE-L:3727] Re: definition of constant capital
> >
> > Fred,
> >
> > What are you doing?
> >
> > I noted that you supposedly quoted -- yes, quoted! -- Marx, p. 317,
> > Fowkes edition, in your posting on 08/16/00:
> >
> > >>In this chapter, Marx did indeed define constant capital as the "money
> > >>laid out for means of production." (p. 317).
> >
> > I pointed out to you in terms I thought could not be avoided [#3683]:
> >
> > >p. 317 has no such phrase in my Fowkes edition and, in fact, the word
> > >"money" does not even appear on that page anywhere (I checked twice -- am
> > >I blind?).
> >
> > >The page rather says "I call [that part of capital which is turned into
> > >means of production] the constant part of capital, or more briefly,
> > >constant capital."
> >
> > >See provide the exact edition of Marx you are using, Fred, if not the
> > >Vintage/Random House 1977.
> >
> > Rather than either admit your erroneous quotation, supposedly from p.
> > 317, or else show my blindness in reading text, you jump me four [sic --
> > should be three] pages later in Marx in your reply [#3699].
> >
> > Your error is therefore now doubled --
> >
> > 1. not admitting to use of a false quotation of Marx to defend your position,
> >
> > 2. not staying on the page you cite which is where Marx defines constant capital.
> >
> > Fred, I'm not going to discuss p. 320 until we resolve my posting RE: p. 317.
> >
> > Disconcertedly, Paul
> >
> >
> > ***********************************************************************
> > Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
> > ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
> >
> >
> > "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/21/00:
> >
> >
> > >This is a brief further response to Paul Z's (3683) about the definition
> > >of constant capital in Chapter 8 of Volume 1. Paul, please look four
> > >pages after the definition we discussed, which is the first page of
> > >Chapter 9 (p. 320) (and indeed please look again at the whole Chapter 9).
> > >Here Marx said:
> >
> > >"The capital C is made up of two components, one the sum of the MONEY c
> > >laid out on means of production, and the other the sum of MONEY v
> > >expended on labor-power; c represents the portion of value which has been
> > >turned into constant capital, v that turned into variable capital. At
> > >the beginning C = c + v: for example, if ú500 is the capital advanced,
> > >its component many be suchthat the ú500 = ú410 constant + ú90 variable.
> > >When the process of production is finished, we get a commodity whose
> > >VALUE = (c + v) + s, where s is the surplus-value; or taking our former
> > >figures, the value of this commodity is (ú410 constant + ú90 variable) +
> > >ú90 surplus. The original capital has now changed from ú500 to ú590. The
> > >difference is s, or a surplus-value of ú90. (emphasis added)
> >
> > >I think it is clear that Marx is defining constant capital and variable
> > >capital (and surplus-value) in terms of money. What do you think?
> > >Thanks again.
> >
> > >Comradely,
> > >Fred
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT