From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 29 2002 - 23:52:09 EDT
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Gil Skillman wrote: > Fred, many thanks for this detailed response. I like how you've broken the > discussion up into steps; it should make it easier to pinpoint necessary > points of disagreement. I'll address just your first point in this post. > > Since that point deals with questions of method and presupposition, I'll > just say that my position in our discussion is not based on imposing any > external "hypothetical" framework on Marx's exposition in Vol. I; I'm > taking my cues from what Marx actually wrote. Of course, I might be > mistaken in my reading of these cues, but any of us might equally be; > that's where the benefit of this sort of discussion comes from, in my view. > > >1. I argue that the quantities of money-capital in Marx's theory of the > >circulation of capital in Volume 1 refer to (or are intended to > >represent) REAL, ACTUAL quantities of money-capital in circulation in the > >real capitalist economy. Marx's theory of the circulation of capital, > >from the very beginning in Volume 1, is about the real, actual capitalist > >economy (as a whole), not about a hypothetical model and hypothetical > >magnitudes. The initial M in the circulation of capital refers to real > >quantities of money-capital invested in means of production and > >labor-power in the capitalist economy as a whole. This real initial M - > >and its component parts, C and V - are taken as given in Marx's theory of > >value and surplus-value in Volume 1 (more on this below). > > I agree with this characterization as far as it's possible to in light of > what Marx actually wrote in the chapters under discussion. On one hand, I > have no problem with the suggestion that Marx is referring to "REAL, ACTUAL > quantities of money-capital in circulation," but see a serious caveat, > based on what Marx actually wrote, with the suggestion that Marx's > theoretical argument at this stage does not involve "a hypothetical model > and hypothetical magnitudes." The caveat is that *in between* his > introduction of the circuit of capital M-C-M' in Chapter 4 and his > definition of the "component parts" of M, C and V, in Chapter 8, Marx > imposes the postulate that all commodities exchange at their respective > values, even while noting at the end of Ch. 5 that [even] "average prices > do not directly coincide with the values of commodities.." [p. 269]. This > is, therefore, a "hypothetical model" of the actual, aggregate circuit of > capital, since, by Marx's own acknowledgement, commodity prices don't > typically correspond to values; and therefore the latter constitute > "hypothetical magnitudes" insofar as they are representations of commodity > prices. Marx's interesting and important footnote at the end of Chapter 5 does not contradict my interpretation. As I explained in the second part of (7714) (not yet discussed in your (7719)), Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is about the TOTAL surplus-value produced in the real capitalist economy as a whole. Therefore, Marx's assumption that commodities exchange at their values applies most rigorously to the TOTAL price of all commodities together. The provisional assumption is also made that individual commodities also exchange at their values, to the extent that exchanges of individual commodities are considered. But, as I explained, the prices of individual commodities are not determined in Volume 1, but are instead determined in Volume 1. And this provisional assumption plays no role in Marx's theory of the total surplus-value in Volume 1. It is simply the only assumption consistent in Volume 1 with the macroeconomic labor theory of value in Volume 1, to the extent that exchanges of individual commodities are considered. In general, individual commodities in Volume 1 represent the total commodity product. That is why Marx can say in the footnote that the fact that individual prices are not equal to their values does not affect his theory of the total surplus-value. Because his theory of the total surplus-value does not depend on the prices of individual commodities. Even though individual prices that = values are hypothetical magnitudes, these are not the prices that are determined in Volume 1. Rather, the total price of the total commodity product and the total surplus-value contained therein are the variables determined in Volume 1, and these are real magnitudes. > So first I must ask: do you agree that Marx introduces at least this > element of "hypothetical magnitudes" in a consequently "hypothetical model" > of the circuit of capital, M-C-M', *before* proceeding to the treatment of > C and V in chapter 8? > > Second, if you agree to the first question, isn't it then *necessarily* the > case that the magnitudes of C and V subsequently "taken as given" by Marx > must be *consistent* with Marx's prior stipulation that all commodities > exchange at their respective values? Would it be legitimate for Marx to > postulate exchange at value if this were inconsistent with the magnitudes > of C and V realized in a "real capitalist economy"? C and V are not taken as given SUBSEQUENTLY to the assumption that commodities exchange at their value. C and V are taken as given in Chapter 4, because M is taken as given and M = C + V (although not explicitly distinguished yet). This is the "prior stipulation" - that M, C and V are taken as given. Given amounts of money-capital are invested to purchase means of production and labor-power (C and V) and their sum is the total money-capital invested (M). As I have explained, the provisional assumption that the prices of the means of production and the means of subsistence are equal to their values is a partial explanation of the given C and V. But, again, the magnitudes of C and V are not determined by this provisional assumption. Rather, the magnitudes of C and V are taken as given. And this provisional assumption plays no role in the determination of the total price of commodities and the total surplus-value in Volume 1. > Third, to anticipate, do you agree that Marx understands commodity values > to be determined by the labor times "socially necessary" to produce > them? If so, how do you understand SNLT, and thus labor values, to be > calculated? Gil, what do you mean by "values" here? Do you mean "labor values" as in your next sentence? If so, then I don't understand the difference between "labor values" and "socially necessary labor-time." Aren't they the same thing? I don't see how "labor values" can be determined by "socially necessary labor-time." Please explain. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 02 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT