From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 08:14:24 EDT
Re Paolo's [7741]: > The nature or quality of capital is that of getting more > than it advances. Therefore the question seems to be how to explain how the > enlargement of capital occurs. From this point of view does the distinction > qualitative/quantitative make any sense? I think it does. The theory of surplus value, as I asserted to Fred in [7726], concerns the form that class exploitation takes under capitalism. Thus, surplus value (and capital) represent a particular form of social relations. These social relations are qualitative. But, because value and s come to be expressed thru the value-form (and the value-form come to be expressed through the money-form) value and s therefore come to be represented quantitatively as magnitude. What's the problem with that way of conceptualizing the subject? The question of _how_ the enlargement of magnitude of surplus value occurs, i.e. how surplus value is produced on an enlarged scale, is *qualitative*: thus in V1, Part 2 we see the discussions of forms of s (absolute and relative). In that sense the goal of capitalist production may be quantitative (increased M) but that quantity can only be increased (assuming a fully capitalist economy) via the exploitation of wage-labor by capitalists (a particular form of qualitative social relation). Do you view that process differently? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT