From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 14:02:34 EDT
At 20:22 -0400 7-10-2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: >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 I'm not sure I've understood you well, Jerry, but there are two issue here: (i) one is to explain how surplus value is originated. in my (macro-monetary) reading this asks for an analysis where the accounting system MUST be (first) in 'values', for several reasons. this is in a sense independent from the issue of: is the total amount of surplus labour extracted in production realised in circulation such as to be actualised as surplus value in the form of money (gross) profits? but if I'm right this simply means that to explain actual surplus value determination and actual prices of production (if they are actual ...)) etc what is needed is a conceptual 'mediation': that is, the prices in vol I are not the immediate, actual prices, etc. btw, there's something un-Hegelian in the notion of mediation? (ii) the second is the fact that surplus value, though coming out from production, is actualised as such ONLY in circulation (actualised: not created). I may suggest - but it's it a provocation - that while Marx's sequence is (rightly) from creation of potential surplus value in production to its actualisation in production, in ACTUAL life what's happen is that firms produce for the market, so it is demand the driving force. which I do not see as something against Marx: provided he is read with an open mind. riccardo -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT