re my own 5390 > > >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. > Let me emend my argument here. I don't see how Marx's "vol one" theory of exploitation is in any undermined if the sum of surplus value is enlarged by labor transferring gratis some additional value from under-priced means of production over and above the surplus value which derives from surplus labor. Unpaid live labor time remains the exclusive source of surplus value. Moreover, let us say that after a complete transformation along the bortkiewicz-sweezy lines, the labor intensive means of production (dept i) output now sells below value; if surplus value is to be enlarged thereby the capital intensive luxuries (dept 3) will now have to sell above value. So the additional surplus value which results from the complete transformation (of course as long as labor transfers gratis the value of the means of production to the commodity output) proves illusory since the output on which the enlarged surplus value is spent has now become more expensive in price terms. This confirms Marx's vol 1 argument that in real terms the capitalist class cannot secure surplus value through the distribution and redistribution of value. In short, my interpretation is perfectly consistent with volume one claims and in particular with the labor theory of value and surplus value. Just as importantly, I (as well as Allin) have yet to receive a reply from Fred or Alejandro why Marx bumbled at least twice into pointing out to double divergence. In my interpretation Marx did not lapse into logical error by underlining this point twice. For Allin, as for Fred and Alejandro, Marx was talking nonsense. I have argued that this is not true. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT