A reply to Rakesh Bhandari's OPE-L 4534. In prior posts, I have shown that Rakesh's interpretation of Marx's value theory must be rejected, because it is incompatible with the theory of which it is the interpretation. Specifically, under Rakesh's interpretation, surplus-labor isn't the sole source of profit. Indeed, under Rakesh's interpretation, there can be surplus-labor but negative profit, and negative surplus-labor but positive profit. In OPE-L 4534, Rakesh tries to deny some of the implications of his interpretation. I have read his remarks several times now. Some of them are digressions on monopoly power, etc., that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. One comment, however, does engage the issue. Rakesh asserts that the "surplus-value" that arises from nowhere in his interpretation is in fact a "transfer" of surplus-value from the past. Unfortunately, this is left as an assertion by Rakesh. He does not prove it, nor even try to prove it. I am convinced he is wrong, that he's engaged in double counting. But neither my intuition nor his counts for anything here. It is up to him to prove his assertion, or to fail trying to do so. Until such time as he proves the assertion, I stand by my demonstration that his interpretation implies that surplus-labor isn't the sole source of profit. I note that, since the matter under consideration is quantitative, the proof must be quantitative as well. The numbers must add up. There must be no double counting. Appeals to intuition don't cut it. In a subsequent post responding to someone else, Rakesh suggested that he couldn't come up with *realistic* examples in which, under his interpretation, there is surplus-labor but negative profit, or negative surplus-labor but positive profit. Of course not. But that's irrelevant. What is at issue is whether, under his interpretation, surplus-labor is NECESSARY and/or SUFFICIENT for positive profit. (It is neither necessary nor sufficient; so surplus-labor is simply not the "cause" or source of profit under Rakesh's interpretation.) What is not at issue is whether, under realistic conditions, surplus-labor and profit just HAPPEN to coexist, i.e. coexist for reasons that have nothing to do with surplus-labor being the source of profit. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST