Hi Fred >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'. To begin with, I disagree that the 'main question' of Marx's theory is quantitative. On setting out the definitive object of his 'critique' Marx explicitly states that the great merit of classical political economy was to have discovered the content of value in labour; it's great defect was never to have discovered the determination of value and labour by social form. He writes (1976 penguin edn, pp173-174): "Political economy has indeed analysed value and its magnitude, however incompletely, and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms. But it has never once asked the question why this content has assumed that particular form, that is to say, why labour is expressed in value, and why the measurement of labour by its duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product" So what is the 'main question' of Marx's theory, as you put it? Is it a clarification and extension of the classical labour-embodied theory of value (an attempt to cover more completely the analysis of value and its magnitude)? Or is it a rejection of the classical question in favour of the qualitative question: the "why" question? Why is value the *form* that labour content assumes, why does the value of the product come to express a measurement of labour in labour-time? The why question has to do with the *essential character* of a historically specific social form dominated by the valorisation process. I see this qualitative question as the 'main question' of Marx's value theory. This puts the focus for the further development of Marx's theory on the corollary of how well he answers the "why" question that he poses: does he succeed in establishing the interconnectedness of elements that make capitalism what it *essentially* is? If one decides that Marx did not succeed in this objective, then reading Capital will be motivated by a heuristic intention to reconstruct Marx's concepts so as to better express his intentions - i.e. the intentions of a theory of 'social' value. This is *not* to say that your alternative emphasis on the quantitative problem is an incorrect interpretation. Marx himself is nowhere (to my knowledge) explicit as to the character and extent of his break with classical concerns. However, if one is interested in the essential interpenetration of production and circulation that typifies capitalism as a social form of production, then the problem - as you set it out below - makes no sense since labour is not the causal element: rather causality is attributed to the systemic essence of capitalism: >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. Given systemic determination - dissociation of lbour, production and consumption, and private ownership of the means of production: (1) the value to labour relationship must be continuously reconstituted as the system reproduces itself and (2) this necessitates the value-form as the 'mode of association' constituting labour and value as 'abstract' in exchange - i.e. there is no sense in which abstract labour is independent of its expression in money. The more concrete grounding of abstract labour and value in price, the interdependence of essence and ground and the systemic determination of elements implies that the independence requirements of formal logic are not captured in Marx's equations, and should not be. To this extent, I disagree with the interpretation and/or meaning you give to Marx's equations. >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. I think you present one possible interpretation, based on the assumption that principles of formal logic are helpful in understanding Marx. Others (Chris A, Tony Smith, etc) have done a great job in making the alternative case that Marx's logic is fundamentally similar to the systematic dialectic of Hegel's (1917) Encyclopedia. If Marx did employ a systematic dialectic, then one cannot read into his equations the stipulation of causal links from abstract-labour-embodied to value and price. I have already argued that this 'analytic' reading misses the role of the market (price system) in allocating labour to different technical-material processes, as it misses the co-constitution of value and price that makes a form determined economy what it *essentially* is. >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. I think that your interpretation is plausible. One alternative interpretation is the systematic dialectical 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. VFT rejects an axiomatic or 'analytic' interpretation of value theory, for reasons above. >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. I mean that there is more than one possible interpretation of Marx's theory, as argued above. It is not the intention of VFT theory to establish a relationship between independent and dependent variables, but to say something fundamental about capitalism: what is fundamental is that money, value and abstract labour are inextricably interconnected and that their unity makes capitalism what it is essentially. In capitalism, value and price are mutually constituted by a social act (exchange) the only process whereby dissociated labours and products are constituted as socially useful, as aggregate value-added. So there is no sense in which surplus value is independent of the monetary expression of abstract labour and the wage rate. Comradely greetings Nicky ---------------------------------- Nicola Mostyn (Taylor) Faculty of Economics Murdoch University Australia Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT