From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 15:59:03 EDT
But Gil, on chapter XXV vol. I the definition of capital invested in terms of quantities times prices is necessary in order to distinguish between technical and value composition of capital. Why this should have any bearing on viewing capital advanced in terms of quantities of money capital as Fred suggests? Paulo Gil Skillman wrote: > Fred, thanks again for the references and the extensive summary of your > argument. With your leave, I'd like to take it step by step, in order to > figure out where our points of necessary disagreement are, if any exist. > > Your first point: > > >1. C and V taken as given, as quantities of money-capital > > > >I argue that, in Marx's theory, the quantities of constant capital and > >variable capital are TAKEN AS GIVEN, PRESUPPOSED, as the two components of > >the initial money capital (M) invested in the first phase of the > >circulation of capital to purchase means of production and labor-power, > >respectively. The initial givens in Marx's theory are NOT the physical > >quantities of inputs, as in Sraffa's theory. > > Granting the latter statement, which is *descriptively* accurate, doesn't > imply any *necessary* *analytical* difference between the two approaches, > does it? That is, the monetary magnitude Marx defines as "constant > capital" is necessarily determined by the sum of constant capital > commodities used up in production multiplied by their respective purchase > prices, isn't it? Doesn't Marx use exactly this formulation in calculating > constant capital in the two examples he considers in K.I Chapter 9 (pp. > 327-329, Penguin)? Similarly, the monetary magnitude Marx defines as > "variable capital" corresponds to the wage rate paid times the units of > labor power employed in production, doesn't it? Doesn't Marx invoke > exactly this sense in describing variable capital as "the sum total of > wages" at the beginning of K.I Chapter 25 (p. 762)? Does Marx ever *deny* > that constant capital and variable capital are respectively determined in > this manner? If not, couldn't the fact that Marx does not *in every > instance* resolve magnitudes of constant and variable capital into vector > products of input prices and input requirements reflect a wish to keep the > argument simple, rather than the desire to make any particular > *theoretical* commitment, especially since he assumes, beginning in K. I > Chapter 6, that commodity prices are always proportional to their > respective labor values? > > Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT