From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 05:23:20 EDT
Dear Fred,
hic rhodus etc.... I have always taken this to mean simply, here is the
problem, now we have to tackle it..
The author is telling us that he has now formulated the problem correctly,
we are in the correct spot to launch the next step.
Marx is always 'concrete' but with different levels of generality.
Paul Bullock
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:7754] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"
>
> Riccardo, thanks for your comments. My replies below.
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote:
>
> > At 22:36 -0400 4-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> > >
> > >I always thought that this quote meant something like "put up or shut
> > >up". But I reread the translator's (Fowkes) footnote tonight, and he
> > >says that this quote is a reference to Hegel, and specifically to the
> > >Preface to Hegel's Philosophy of Right. According to Fowkes, Hegel
> > >"uses the quote to illustrate his view that the task of philosophy is
to
> > >apprehend and comprehend WHAT IS, rather that what ought to be."
> > >(emphasis added)
> >
> >
> > of course, "a hypothetical total
> > surplus-value proportional to the labor-time embodied in surplus
> > goods" has nothing to do with "what ought to be". this
> > characterization would apply to a Ricardian socialist, not to a
> > Marxian (or to most of Marxians).
> >
> > in the specific instance, the idea you criticize is (or may be seen)
> > as essential to understand what is. this is true: both if we accept
> > or if we deny that this notion is actually the Marxian one, relevant
> > to read Capital vol I.
>
> 1. I am glad that you agree that the aim of Marx's theory of
> surplus-value is to explain the actual total surplus-value ("what is").
>
>
> 2. However, you seem to suggest that is possible to have a
> "two-stage" theory of the actual total surplus-value (the term is mine,
> not Riccardo's but I think it accurately reflects the theory that Riccardo
> is suggesting; please correct me if I am wrong):
>
> Stage 1: determination of a hypothetical total surplus-value (dM*)
>
> Stage 2: the transformation of this hypothetical total surplus-value into
> the actual total surplus-value (dM).
>
> You suggest that this "two-stage" theory is possible, whether or not it is
> Marx's theory in Capital.
>
>
> 3. In the current discussion, I am interested only in what is Marx's
> theory in Capital.
>
>
> 4. And I see no textual evidence at all, in any of Marx's manuscripts,
> that he himself followed such a "two-stage" method. Quite to the
> contrary, there are many, many passages, throughout the various drafts of
> Capital (as I have documented in several papers) which suggest that Marx
> himself understood his own logical method of the determination of the
> actual total surplus-value to be a "one-stage" method. The actual total
> surplus-value is determined in one step, in Volume 1.
>
> The second step in Marx's theory is NOT to transform a hypothetical
> surplus-value into the actual total surplus-value. Rather, Marx's second
> step presupposes a GIVEN, predetermined total surplus-value (Marx said
> many times) and explains the division of this given total surplus-value
> into individual parts. The second step is DIVISION of the total
> surplus-value, not ALTERATION of the total surplus-value. There is NO
> TRANSFORMATION of a hypothetical total surplus-value (dM*) to the actual
> total surplus-value (dM) in Capital.
>
>
> 5. Therefore, I think we have to conclude, don't we, that Marx himself
> understood his theory to determine the actual total surplus-value in one
> step, i.e. in Volume 1? Whether or not a "two-stage" theory of the actual
> total surplus-value is possible, and why one would want to explain the
> actual total surplus-value in two stages rather than one, are separate
> questions. But I think it is clear that Marx's own theory of the actual
> total surplus-value is a "one-stage" theory.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > so, Fred, I think you are creating a straw man (or woman).
> >
> > riccardo
>
> I don't thing I am creating a straw man. Rather, I think I am trying to
> clarify the logical method that Marx himself used to construct his
> economic theory. And, as I said, I think it is quite clear that Marx's
> own theory of the actual total surplus-value is a "one-stage" theory.
>
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 10 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT