Gil, thanks very much for your interesting and helpful posts. This is a response to (3920). You are right, I am making a different argument in my last post (3895) than in (3831). I argued in (3895) that new-value and surplus-value are not just determined up to a factor of proportionality; rather they are UNIQUELY determined, because m is taken as given as a unique value. Marx's theory assumes that there is an actual m in the economy, with a definite magnitude; i.e. that each hour of abstract labor produces a definite quantity m of money new-value. It is this actual m, with a definite magnitude, that is taken as given in Marx's theory of new-value and surplus-value. In my (3831), I temporarily forgot this fundamental assumption in Marx's theory, and assumed incorrectly (as you do) that, because m is not determined, m could be any value. In which case new-value would be determined only up to the factor of proportionality m. But this is not true. Even though m is not determined, m cannot have any value. At a given point in time, m has a unique value, the actual m in the economy. m may of course change from time to time. But at a given point in time, m is assumed to have a definite, unique value. This unique m, along with other givens, uniquely determines new-value and surplus-value (the actual new-value and surplus-value in the economy). Why is not permissible to take this unique, actual m as given? It would of course be better to explain the determination of m. But the lack of determination of m does not mean that surplus-value is indeterminant. Because the actual m is taken as given, which uniquely determines the actual surplus-value. A reply to your (3904) forthcoming. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:07 EST