This is a reply to Geert's (5669). On Sat, 26 May 2001, Geert REUTEN wrote: > Nevertheless, Fred, for the sake of argument I could cast this in terms of > linear logic so as to clarify -- hopefully -- where we disagree (so this is > an internal critique). Let A be a factor of determination. S is what we > want to explain. I assume for the sake of argument that we agree on the > form/measure issues. > We move from: > (a) S = f(A1; A2) > to the richer explanation: > (b) S = f(A1; A2; A3). > (Say we move from Vol I to Vol III pt 2 or 3.) > There are two possible interpretations of this. > My view is that S(a) is a different quantity from S(b). > Your view seems to be that S(a)=S(b). If that is the case then the RHS of > (a) must be an approximation. But if it is an approximation then you have > no full determination. (In which case it is not clear what quantity you > redistribute at V3 level.) Geert, thanks very much for this very clear formulation. I will try to be equally clear in my reply. As I understand Marx's theory, there is no new A3 when Marx moves from Vols. 1 and 2 to Vol. 3, i.e. there are no new determinants of the magnitude of surplus-value. As I have shown, the magnitude of surplus-value produced in a given period is determined by Marx's theory of surplus-value presented in Vol. 1, as represented by the following equation (ignoring turnover time analyzed in Vol. 2): (1) S = m (L - Ln) = m Ls No new determinants are added to this equation in Vol. 3. Of course, L and Ln in turn depend on a number of other factors, including the length of the working day and the productivity of labor, which Marx analyzed extensively in Vol. 1. However, these other factors are not themselves direct determinants of the magnitude of surplus-value. Rather, these other factors are indirect determinants, i.e. they affect the magnitude of surplus-value only through the fundamental, direct determinants of L and Ln. Vol. 3 is mainly about the distribution of surplus-value (all but Part 3). Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Vol. 3 presents no new determinants of the magnitude of surplus-value. No new variables are added to the RHS of equation (1). The theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Vol. 3 is no longer about the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value. That task has already been accomplished in Volume 1. Rather the theory is now about the division of the predetermined amount of total surplus-value into individual parts. The division of the total surplus-value into individual parts does not affect the magnitude of the total surplus-value that is being divided up. Geert, you mention changes in the productivity of labor and changes in the composition of capital as new determinants of the magnitude of surplus-value in Vol. 3. But the productivity of labor is not a new determinant of the magnitude of surplus-value. As just discussed, the effect of the productivity of labor on the magnitude of surplus-value is extensively analyzed in Vol. 1. The effects of a change in the composition of capital depends on the extent to which L is affected. But again, the productivity of labor and the composition of capital are indirect determinants of surplus-value, not additional direct determinants. Furthermore, in Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Vol. 3, the productivity of labor and the composition of capital are held constant. The productivity of labor and the composition of capital in a given period are taken as given and determine in part the magnitude of surplus-value produced during this period, according to Marx's theory in Vol. 1. In Vol. 3, Marx's question is: how is the total surplus-value produced during this period (as already determined) divided into individual parts (i.e. divided among individual capitalists)? The division of the total surplus-value into individual parts in this period does not affect the productivity of labor and the composition of capital (or other indirect determinants of surplus-value) in this period, and therefore does not affect the magnitude of the total surplus-value produced in this period. (Of course, the division of surplus-value may result in a change in the productivity of labor or the composition of capital in future periods, and hence result in a change in the magnitude of surplus-value in future periods. But the division of surplus-value in the given period does not change surplus-value produced in the given period. That is my point) Now to my textual evidence. I have presented dozens of passages (in two papers) in which Marx stated in one way or another that the total amount of surplus-value is taken as given (as predetermined) in his theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Vol. 3, and that this total amount does not change as a result of its division into individual parts. I have presented passages of this nature from each and every part of Vol. 3 (except Part 3), including especially the concluding Part 7, and also from Marx's earlier manuscripts and several important letters. Geert dismisses all this textual evidence by saying that he will continue to understand these passages "at their level of abstraction". Geert, would you please explain what do you mean by "at their level of abstraction"? What is the level of abstraction to which all these passages refer? Do you think that Marx developed his theory of the distribution of surplus-value further in Vol. 3 to a more concrete level of abstraction, at which the total surplus-value is no longer taken as given, but is somehow redetermined, such that all the passages I have presented no longer apply? What is this lower level of abstraction? At what point in Vol. 3 does Marx move to this lower level of abstraction? Why does the magnitude of surplus-value change at this lower level of abstraction? And what textual evidence is there to support this interpretation? It seems to me that, if answers cannot be given to these questions, then I think it has to be concluded that Marx's many statements about the total surplus-value taken as given in his theory of the distribution of surplus-value, and not changing as a result of the distribution of surplus-value, remain valid throughout Vol. 3. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:09 EDT