From: Gil Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 18:03:08 EDT
Paulo, It's true that Marx's *eventual* point in the passage I cited from K.I Ch. 25 is to make a distinction between the technical and value composition of capital. But the validity of his equation of "variable capital" and "the sum of wages" does not, so far as I can see, depend on that distinction being made. Gil >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