From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 09 2002 - 13:33:52 EDT
Riccardo, thanks for your reply.
My description of your interpretation as a "two-stage" theory had to do
specifically with the determination of the total surplus-value. Perhaps I
should not use for now the terms "hypothetical" and "actual" (it would
take some work to explain exactly what I mean by these terms). So fow now
I will just use the terms "Volume 1 total surplus-value" and "Volume 3
total surplus-value". I think my description of your interpretation as a
"two-stage" theory of the "Volume 3 total surplus-value" still applies.
Stage 1: determination of the "Volume 1 total surplus-value" (dM*) that is
proportional to the labor-time embodied in surplus-goods.
Stage 2: transformation of this "Volume 1 total surplus-value" into the
"Volume 3 total surplus-value" (dM).
I repeat the same points that I made in (7754):
I know of no textual evidence at all, in any of Marx's manuscripts, that
he himself followed such a "two-stage" method of the determination of the
"Volume 3 total surplus-value". Quite to the contrary, there are 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 "Volume 3 total
surplus-value" to be a "one-stage" method. The total surplus-value is
determined in in Volume 1 and then taken as given in Volume 3.
The second step in Marx's theory is NOT to transform the "Volume 1 total
surplus-value" into the "Volume 3 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 a
given total surplus-value, not ALTERATION of the total surplus-value to a
different magnitude. There is NO TRANSFORMATION of a "Volume 1 total
surplus-value" (dM*) to the "Volume 3 total surplus-value" (dM) in
Capital.
Therefore, again, I think we have to conclude that Marx himself understood
his theory to determine the total surplus-value in one step, i.e. in
Volume 1.
Comradely,
Fred
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote:
> Hi Fred,
>
> first, let me thank you for your answer.
>
> your mail would deserve a much longer and detailed reply.
> but, now, let me give a quick one.
>
> whatever the merits of your interpretation and position, I
> hope you realised the theme of my comments. you seemed to me to want
> to present a kind of 'smoking gun' supporting your interpretation.
>
> I simply countered that you misrepresented the position of
> some (or most) of the people who think that 'values' are relevant in
> the story told in volume I. why you misrepresented them? because you
> charged them with a preoccupation with what 'ought to be'. no, that's
> wrong: I argued that they, as you, are interested in 'what is' and
> read Marx as interested in what is, and surplus value (whatever the
> different interpretation of the notion are) has to to with what is.
>
> and this has nothing to do with two-stage theory if it is
> meant as two-approximation (e.g., there are a lot of people,
> including myself, who valued 'values' but didn't had any
> two-approximation approach: I am against it, well, since my first
> course in Marxism, 1972). if you mean two-stage as, first 'values',
> then 'prices of production', then I guess you have to criticize first
> of all the Master.
>
> in any case, the first stage is not hypothetical at all. it
> is ACTUAL surplus labour (provided all the 'value' produced is
> realized: but certainly YOU should have nothing against it), as
> ACTUAL social working day less ACTUAL necessary labour. is this not
> 'what it is'?
>
> now, in your answer to me, you restate your position, but I
> do not see where you dismantle my point. at the minimum, Marx may be
> read in this two different ways. at the minimum. so, my answer stays
> where it is (see ps).
>
> of course, you try to argue as if YOUR Marx is Marx: it may
> be, but I do not find very interesting the position of those (either
> TSS or your kind or my kind or any kind of scholar) who in the XXIth
> century seem to think that a text has only one reading. of course, I
> am interested in looking at your quotes: but they have not convinced
> me that we have found a Marx without any contradiction (the same I
> could say, say, for me, or any other).
>
> and I still wait your answer to show me that it is clear that
> Marx didn't had the real wage as given in vol I. which to me is a
> good falsification of your reading. as long as this is a POSSIBLE
> reading of Marx, vol I, well, the debate still goes on.
>
> riccardo
>
> ps: hic Rhodus, hic salta!
>
>
>
> At 17:26 -0400 5-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> >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
>
>
> --
>
> 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 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT