This is a belated response to Rakesh's 5390, which unfortunately I deleted. Rakesh, sorry for the delay. I have been swamped with end of semester stuff. But that will be over soon. Rakesh said: "I do not know what you mean by the magnitude of surplus value being determined in volume one." What I mean is that the total magnitude of surplus-value for the economy as a whole is determined in Volume 1, as proportional to surplus labor, and then this total amount does not change and is taken as given in Volumes 2 and 3 of Capital. Volume 2 is about the circulation of capital. According to Marx's theory, no surplus-value is created in circulation. Surplus-value is created in production. Production is the subject of Volume 1. In the Volume 2 analysis of the circulation of capital, the quantity of surplus-value produced is assumed to have already been determined in Volume 1, and is taken as given in Volume 2. Similarly, Volume 3 is about the distribution of surplus-value. According to Marx's theory, the distribution of surplus-value (including equal rates of profit and prices of production) does not affect the total amount of surplus-value produced, as determined in Volume 1. In the Volume 3 analysis of the distribution of surplus-value, the total quantity of surplus-value is taken as given, as already determined. For example, the general rate of profit is equal to the total amount of surplus-value divided by the total capital invested. This determination of the general rate of profit presumes that the total amount of surplus-value has already been determined. To further clarify, I don't just mean that surplus-value cannot increase from Volume 1 to Volume 3 (as you suggest in your post); I also mean that surplus-value cannot decrease. That is, the total surplus-value does not change as a result of the distribution of surplus-value. The total surplus-value is taken as given in Volume 3, as already determined. Marx stated this fundamental premise many times throughout his various drafts of Capital, as I have documented in two papers and numerous OPEL posts. I would be happy to reexamine this textual evidence. (I would also be happy to send these papers to anyone interested.) Rakesh also said: "I am at a loss why exactly you think my interpretation undermines key claims of volume one... In no way is my interpretation inconsistent with volume one findings, as you continue to suggest." What your interpretation contradicts is the key premise that the total quantity of surplus-value is taken as given in Volume 3 and does not change as a result of the distribution of surplus-value, as discussed above. According to your interpretation (which in this respect is the standard interpretation), the quantity of surplus-value does change as a result of the determination of prices of production in Volume 3. That is why I argue that your interpretation "undermines" or "is inconsistent with" Marx's theory - because it violates this key premise. I look forward to further discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT