This is a response to Nicky and Geert. I want to begin with an explanation of why I think Marx's theory is a quantitative theory (as well as a qualitative theory). To begin with, I am not trying to make any comparisons of Marx's theory with than other theories. I am just trying to explain in what sense I think Marx's theory is a quantitative theory. Then, the next question will be whether or not the value-form interpretation (VFI) of Marx's theory retains this quantitative dimension of Marx's theory (that Marx himself considered so important). 1. The main question of Marx's theory is to explain how a given quantity of money (M) is converted into a greater quantity of money (M'), i.e. to explain how an increment of money (dM) is produced. The whole of Volume 1 is structured around this central question. The general analytical framework of all three volumes is M - C - M'. 2. This question of how M becomes M' is a purely quantitative question. The M' is qualitatively the same as the M; both are quantities of money. The only difference between M and M' is a quantitative difference (dM). Marx made this point in Chapter 4 of Volume 1, in which Marx first introduced this all-important question: "It is otherwise in the cycle M-C-M. At first sight, this appears to lack any content, because it is tautological. Both extremes have the same economic form. They are both money, and therefore are not qualitatively different use-values, for money is precisely the converted form of commodities, in which their particular use-values have been extinguished. To exchange $100 for cotton, and then to exchange this same cotton again for $100, is merely a roundabout way of exchanging money for money, the same for the same, and appears to be an operation as purposeless as it is absurd. ONE SUM OF MONEY IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ANOTHER ONLY BY ITS AMOUNT. The process M-C-M does not therefore owe its content to any qualitative differences between the extremes, for they are both money, but SOLELY TO QUANTITATIVE CHANGES. More money is finally withdrawn from circulation than was thrown into it at the beginning. The cotton originally purchased for $100 is for example resold for $100 + $10, i.e. $110. The complete form of the process is therefore M-C-M', where M' = M + dM, i.e. the original sum advanced plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call `surplus-value'." (C.I: 250-51; emphasis added). We can see from this last sentence that "surplus-value" is defined by Marx as the increment of money that must be explained. 3. Marx presented his theory of the magnitude of surplus-value in Chapter 7 of Volume 1. In this chapter, Marx implicitly derived, through numerical examples, the following equation for the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value (S): (1) S = m (L - Ln) = m Ls where L is the quantity of current labor, Ln is the quantity of necessary labor, Ls = (L - Ln), and m is the money value added per hour of labor. In Marx's numerical illustration of his theory in Chapter 7, m = 0.5 shillings / hr and Ln = 6 hrs. As is well known, Marx assumes two different values for L (in dramatic fashion): first L = 6 hrs, in which case S = 0; and then L = 12 hrs, in which case S = 3 shillings. Therefore, we can see that according to Marx's theory, the magnitude of S is proportional to the magnitude of Ls: if Ls = 0 hrs, then S = 0 shillings if Ls = 6 hrs, then S = 3 shillings if Ls = 8 hrs, then S = 4 shillings etc. As Andy put it in (5591), Marx's theory explains why S is one magnitude and not another magnitude. The magnitude of S is proportional to the magnitude of Ls. The labor-time quantities on the RHS of equation (1) are the independent variables which exist independently of money, and the magnitude of surplus-value on the LHS is the dependent variable, which is determined by the independent variables on the RHS. Most of the rest of Volume 1 is about absolute and relative surplus-value, i.e. about changes in the magnitudes of L and Ln, which in turn determine changes in the magnitude of S. I am not arguing that this is the ONLY WAY that one could determine the magnitude of surplus-value. But I am arguing that this is the way MARX determined the magnitude of surplus-value in Chapter 7 and elsewhere. 4. Geert and Nicky (and others), do you think that the above is a correct interpretation of Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value, as presented in Chapter 7? If not, then please explain why not. On the other hand, if you agree that the above is at least a plausible interpretation of Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value, do you think there is also another plausible interpretation of Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value as presented in Chapter 7, or elsewhere? Is so, please explain this alternative interpretation. I myself do not see any other possible interpretation. Finally, if you agree that the above interpretation is the correct interpretation of Marx, then how do you incorporate this quantitative dimension into the VFI of Marx's theory? As I understand it, the VFI rejects the labor-time quantities on the RHS of equation (1) as independent variables which exist independently of money and which determine money magnitudes. Therefore, the VFI appears to reject Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would love to be wrong. Geert, when you say in (5577) that "labor is the source of surplus-value," do you mean the same thing as equation (1) above, or something different? If different, please explain. Nicky, when you suggest in (5585) that there is more than one way to determine the magnitude of surplus-value, do you mean that there is more than one possible interpretation of Marx's theory, or that VF theory provides a different theory of the magnitude of surplus-value than Marx's theory. In either case, would you please explain either the alternative interpretation of Marx's theory or the alternative VF theory of the magnitude of surplus-value. Thanks very much for this very stimulating discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT