re 5388 Fred, I shall answer your questions but there's the outstanding one which I posed to you: why did Marx twice flub in asserting this problem of double divergence? >Thanks very much to Jerry and Charlie and Paul C. for their recent posts >on this topic. This is a response to Rakesh's (5373). > >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > >> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, you wrote: >> >> Re Rakesh's [5367]: >> >> >> >> >> >> The question, though, is whether the magnitude >> >> of surplus-value *in the aggregate* is altered by >> >> turnover time. >> > >> >Assuming the size of the working population, the working >> >day and the real wage are being held constant, obviously not. >> > >> >A change in turnover time is just another way of saying that >> >there is change in the organic composition. It affects only >> >the rate of profit per person year of capital employed. >> >> >> Sure the magnitude of surplus value is not affected (as Jerry, Paul C >> and Charlie seem to be all arguing), the rate of surplus value >> however is. And the rate of surplus value is obviously a (if not the >> main concern) concern of vol 1, so this suggests that the >> determinants of s/v are not exhausatively treated in volume one, as >> Fred *seems* to be suggesting to me. > > >Rakesh, I thought it was clear that, in our recent discussion, I have been >talking mainly about the MAGNITUDE of surplus-value, not the rate of >surplus-value. Our discussion has been about the magnitude of >surplus-value in Marx's equation value = K + S. My persistent question >has been: is the magnitude of surplus-value in this equation the same as >or different from the surplus-value determined in Volume 1? We are obviously talking past each other. The magnitude of surplus value is always total value, as monetarily expressed, minus cost price. That's what it is in vol 1; that's what it is in vol 3. > >At first, you seemed to argue that the magnitude of surplus-value is not >determined in Volume 1, but is instead affected by turnover time analyzed >in Volume 2. But now you seem to agree (with Jerry and Charley and Paul >C. and myself) that the magnitude of surplus-value is not affected by >turnover time and hence is determined in Volume 1. (I notice that in your >numerical example, the reduction of turnover time does not affect the >magnitude of surplus-value, which remains at 50; please see below.) Well do note that you are implicitly granting my point that we are not given an exhaustative determination of the rate of surplus value in volume one, and I would argue that the rate of surplus value--the relation between the capitalist class and the working class in the process of the production of capital--is obviously the main topic of volume one, not the absolute magnitude of surplus value. At any rate, the magnitude of surplus value will be changed by a reduction or elongation of circulation time as well. So the magnitude of surplus value *in any one year* cannot be determined until we know the time spent in circulation in that year (assuming that productive capital lies fallow during circulation time). You could say that the maximum magnitude of surplus value is determined in volume one. But we cannot the actual magnitude of surplus value produced in any given year until we consider volume 2 determinants, e.g., circulation time. > >So, I ask again: what is the relation between the magnitude of >surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 and the magnitude of >surplus-value in the equation value = K + S in Volume 3? I do not what you mean by the magnitude of surplus value being determined in volume one. I take it that you mean that in vol I Marx shows that surplus labor is alone the source of surplus value, and since in my interpretation if the means of production are bought below value--a truly freak case with no practical relevance--surplus labor may not alone be the source of surplus value, I can't have got Marx right. And you seem to be further arguing that if we agree with you that the value transferred from the means of production is the value of the money paid for them, then it would not affect total value if the value of the means themselves was above that the value of the money advanced to buy the means of production. That is, the means of production being purchased below value could not itself lead in any way to the enlargement of surplus value. So your interpretation of the determination of value is consistent with the volume one thesis that surplus labor is alone the source of surplus value. But I have already responded to this (OPE 5127). In volume one Marx argues that SURPLUS VALUE--a monetary residual--derives entirely from LIVE LABOR, that is from the sum of value which live labor (a) transfers gratis from the means of production and (b)the value it newly adds over and above this--as that sum of value is monetarily expressed--minus cost price. Yes, it is conceivable that if the means of production were systematically bought below value, the mass of surplus value could be enlarged thereby. But this in no way undermines the thesis that live labor is the sole source of surplus value, for it is live labor alone that transfers the value of those means to the output. Being able to purchase means of production below value would NOT be a source of surplus value without the unpaid work of live labor which remains the sole source of surplus value. So I am at a loss why exactly you think my interpretation undermines key claims of volume one. Marx's point IN VOLUME ONE is that the value which workers transfer from the means of production and thus preserve is a gift the working class performs for free for the capitalist class. However Marx gives good reason to believe that on empirical probabilistic grounds the purchase of means of production below value cannot be a secure source of surplus value for capital *as a whole*. And he is of course very correct about this. So in no way is my interpretation inconsistent with volume one findings, as you continue to suggest. MOREOVER, MY INTERPRETATION DOES NOT HAVE MARX LAPSING INTO LOGICAL CONTRADICTION AS YOUR INTERPRETATION DOES. > Are these two >magnitudes of surplus-value the same or different? If different, >why? And what is the textual evidence? So for me surplus value is always the same, the said monetary residual and its source is exclusively live labor. In no way does my interpretation undermine volume one findings, AND IT HAS THE ADDED ADVANTAGE OF NOT HAVING MARX LAPSE INTO LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. And then there is yet another advatange to my interpretation: it maintains Marx's adherence to the idea that due to our fetishistic social relations value is in principle not observable or directly measurable. In your interpretation the value transferred from the means of production *is* the visible flow price of the machine. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT