Re Fred's [5529]: > But I agree with (2) is very important too, and I > plan to write a paper on this subject this > summer. I would be happy to send you a copy. I'd be happy to have a copy. Perhaps we can discuss that paper, then, on the list in the Fall? > I do not think that the level of competition is > entirely abstracted from > in Volume 3. Volume 3 is mainly about the > distribution of surplus-value, > i.e. the division of the total surplus-value into > individual parts by > means of competition among capitals (equal rates of profit, merchant > profit, interest, and rent). At the same time, I > agree that there are > other aspects of competition, besides those > discussed in Volume 3, that > are not included in Volume 3 (unequal rates of > profit, credit and stock capital, etc.). I agree with the above paragraph. > Dussel suggests that there are two sublevels of > competition - the more abstract aspects of > competition included in Volume 3 and the more > concrete aspects not included in Volume 3. >From the perspective of trying to comprehend Marx's architectonic, this makes sense to me. But, this argument deserves more examination. What is the source from Dussel that you are referring to? (btw, do you know what his latest interests and writings concern?) > In this case, I think Marx's assumption of the > prior determination of the > total surplus-value (in Volume 1) continues to > hold. The monopoly > industries would get more surplus-value, but the > competitive industries > would get less. The total surplus-value is not > affected by this unequal > distribution of surplus-value, just like the total > surplus-value is not > affected by the equal distribution of surplus- > value. Well ... let's look at the implications of the *other* equality (sum of value = sum of POP) on this matter. In his 4/30/68 letter to Engels, Marx indicates that "Those branches of production which constitute natural *monopolies* are exempted from this equalization process even if their rate of profit is higher than the social rate." I know you are familiar with this quotation (for some reason which remains unclear to me, this quote has been frequently referred to by John E. Do you understand why he keeps raising it?). Yet, the proposition that the sum of values equals the sum of prices of production assumes that we continue to operate in the POP realm of 'capitalist communism'. When looking at monopolies, though, we are *not only referring to the distribution of surplus value* . Is not *VALUE* itself created by workers in the monopolized branches of production? *If* workers in those branches produce value, then it can no longer be the case that the sum of value = the sum of POP since that equality holds *before* the value created by the workers in these branches have been taken into account. This suggests that this equality which holds at the level of abstraction where there are POP might not then also hold at a more concrete level of analysis. Thus what is 'given' as an equality at one level of analysis becomes uncertain at at the more concrete level. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT