On Fri, 11 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > I mean that s actually depends on whether the means of > production were bought above or below value (assuming that labor > transfers gratis their value in toto to the output). Similarly, Rakesh had also argued in (5542), that after the determination of prices of production: "the sum of surplus value in any branch could be higher or lower depending on whether the means of prod [are] sold below of above value ..." In other words, Rakesh is arguing that THE MAGNITUDE OF SURPLUS-VALUE CHANGES from Volume 1 to Volume 3, because the assumption regarding the price of the MP changes from V1 to V3 - right, Rakesh? 1. I said in my last post that I do not know of one single passage in Volume 3 or elsewhere iin Marx's manuscripts in which he stated that the magnitude of surplus-value changes from V1 to V3. I know of many passages in which Marx stated that the profits of individual industries could be (and generally are) different from the surplus-values produced in each industry. But I know of no passage in which Marx states that the surplus-value itself changes from V1 to V3. So I asked Rakesh in my last post for references to passages in which Marx stated that the magnitude of surplus-value changes from Volume 1 to Volume 3. Rakesh replied with two references - the same two passages we have been discussing for a long time: C.III.: 264-65 and C.III: 308-09. But, Rakesh, I find nothing in these two passages about a change in the magnitude of surplus-value. So, would you please quote for us the specific sentences from these passages in which you think Marx is stating that the magnitude of surplus-value changes from V1 to V3. Thanks very much in advance. 2. Beyond the lack of textual evidence, a change in the magnitude of surplus-value as a result of the detemination of prices of production (as Rakesh suggests) contradicts one of the basic premises of Marx's theory - that the magnitude of surplus-value DOES NOT CHANGE as a result of the distribution of surplus-value. I have documented in two papers the textual evidence on this basic premise, and would be happy to review these texts. Therefore, either Rakesh's interpretation is wrong about the mangitude of surplus-value changing as a result of the determination of prices of production, or Marx was wrong when he stated many times that the magnitude of surplus-value does not change as a result of the distribution of surplus-value. I think Rakesh's interpretation is wrong. Rakesh, I look forward to your reply and to further discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT