From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 20:22:37 EDT
Re Fred's [7765]: > Jerry, my statement that "I see no textual evidence at all, in any of > Marx's manuscripts, that he himself followed such a "two-stage" method" > referred to how I understood Riccardo's interpretation, according to > which: > Stage 1 is determination of a hypothetical total surplus-value > (dM*) proportional to the labor-time embodied in surplus goods. > Stage 2 is the transformation of this hypothetical total surplus-value > into the actual total surplus-value (dM). > I don't see that any of the passages you have cited suggest this kind of > "two-stage" determination of the total actual surplus-value. > Would you please clarify? Thanks. Well, what is meant by _your expression_ "two-stage method" is unclear. Are you suggesting that in the "two-stage method" the transition between "Stage 1" and "Stage 2" does not concern the actualization/realization of surplus-value? Of course, Riccardo can speak for himself but I would suggest that that transition *fundamentally* concerns the subject of the actualization of surplus-value. Hence when you asserted that there is "no textual evidence" it seems to me that this ignores the many passages where Marx discussed that topic. The question, as I see it, is whether the magnitude of the given total surplus value is the amount emerging from production or the amount following sale. In the later scenario surplus-value is not created in the sphere of circulation but the magnitude of actual surplus value can be diminished over the amount that was presumed (the 'hypothetical' amount) prior to the sale of the commodity product. This interpretation suggests a *necessary link between the magnitude of surplus value and delta M* (where M' = M + delta M). Hence, one could call it a truly macro-monetary perspective. Of course, Riccardo and others may see the issue differently. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT