In reply to OPE-L 4522. In OPE-L 4515, I demonstrated that, according to Rakesh's interpretation of Marx, surplus-labor is not the sole source of profit (or "surplus-value"). To avoid other problems of interpretation, assume that the price and the value of labor-power are equal. Marx's aggregate surplus-value is the value added by living labor minus the price of labor-power. But Rakesh's aggregate "surplus-value" is Marx's surplus-value PLUS the difference between the value and the price of used-up means of production. Moreover, "surplus-value" in Rakesh's interpretation can be positive when Marx's is negative. Marx's is negative when the price of labor-power exceeds the value added by living labor. If this is the case, Rakesh's "surplus-value" will still be positive if the difference between the value and the price of used-up means of production is greater than the difference between the price of labor-power and the value added by living labor. I regard this as sufficient to reject Rakesh's interpretation. Rakesh implicitly acknowledges that my demonstration is correct. But he objects : Now Andrew could ask me what happens if the means of production sold : so above value that cost price would more than swallow up the total : value as indirect and direct labor; my reply would be that such : production would not be undertaken or bankruptcy would be filed. : There would be no negative surplus value--there would simply be no : surplus value and perhaps not sufficient value for the replacement of : k either. There are various problems here. First, this reply for some reason is not a response to the demonstration reiterated above, which I presented in the post to which Rakesh was replying. It is a response to an earlier demonstration. Second, the case reiterated above -- POSITIVE "surplus-value" despite workers receiving more than a equivalent of the labor-time they work -- occurs when the price of the means of production sell BELOW value. Third, there is no issue of bankruptcy in this case. Total price equals total value, and the means of production can be replaced more cheaply than if they had to be replaced at value since, again, they sell BELOW value. Fourth, the "so above" point is not well taken; the price-value difference of means of production may be extremely small. E.g., the aggregate price of labor-power minus the aggregate value added by living labor may be 1 cent and the aggregate value of used-up means of production may exceed their price by 2 cents. Marx's surplus-value will be -1 cent; Rakesh's will be +1 cent. So again, since it hurts when you go like this, Rakesh, I recommend that you don't go like that. If you give up the attempt to identify the constant capital-value transferred with the value of used-up means of production, everything will work out just fine. On another matter. If the temporal single-system interpretation of the quantitative dimension of Marx's value theory is an "adding up" interpretation, then so is Rakesh's interpretation. In BOTH interpretations, the value of the product is equal to AND determined by the sum of value transferred from used-up means of production plus the value added by living labor. In BOTH, two sums of value are added. (But this is not what is meant by an "adding up" theory of value.) The only difference between the interpretations is that Rakesh adheres to the dual-system notion that the sum of value transferred is determined by the value of the means of production rather than the sum of value currently needed to acquire them. That is all. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST