From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 05:59:12 EDT
At 13:33 -0400 9-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote: >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. answered in the prior mail. here I only add that, as long as we talk of vol III as it is, we both agree that the two magnitudes, interpreted in your way and in my way are (still) the same. the problem arises if we develop further Marx's transformation. then what I have is a four stage transformation, and (at least) the fourth step is what you deny. ok. in this sense I have steps. but: - no two approximations - no 'unreality' of the value magnitudes - and I insist: when I go to the four step (which is reconstructio: but here we don't have Marx ending his reasoning, it is an unpublished manuscript for all of us: a fact) I still have my vol I total surplus value still there - and I insist again: after my four step you and me go together: so anything you say for showing me that Capital vol I may be read (AFTER vol III, developed) in your way, is OK to me. I like it. It is what I wanted to say all the time, and now I can say thanks, also, to your help (and Foley's, and Duménil's, and yes may be some Dobb, some Sraffa, some Rubin, some Colletti, some Napoleoni, some Graziani etc.: I am a 'slow learner', and I can say something only with the help of others) > >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". indeed, you are right: (i) I showed strong evidence for my first two-stages: e.g., Bellofiore-Finelli, paper in Campbell and Reuten etc. (ii) there is clearly a passage from vol I and vol III which is the theoretical construction of the third step (iii) you NEVER have the passage from the third to the fourth step. I always said that. what I say more is that, once understood Marx's "method of comparison" in his own terms, the way forward is clear. but this of course creates the need for some changes. and this makes me - unlike you, unlike TSS - an heterodox of course, if one follows your way (your interpretation, and your search for a coherent, unitary textual evidences, one has to have ALL the quotes confirming your view. as we saw in Bergamo, there are people who don't like very much an argument saying: well;, Marx says this, what does it mean? well, he couldn't have said other than this, etc. but the main problem is, to me, that there are quotes whicch disconfirms what you think as the only interpretation of Marx: take the 'little' problem of Marx on wages (but take also relative surplus value extraction, which more or less is predicated first on that view of wages, etc.) >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. I strongly disagree. I, as you (I would say, more than you 8-)) have a properly MACRO-MONETARY view of exploitation (put forward as such in English since at least 1988). but I know this is RECONSTRUCTION. you say this is INTERPRETATION. now, the 'macro'-'micro' distinction was foreign to Marx: so you have to do in your papers a lot of 'bridges', more or less firm, to reach you 'demonstartion'. > > >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. yes, this is YOUR interpretation. I simply say: Marx as it is leave open many possibilities (for sure, yours and mine) >The second step is DIVISION of a >given total surplus-value, not ALTERATION of the total surplus-value to a >different magnitude. this is true to me, also: but you probably should write "given total surplus money". the problem here is the divorce between this two notions, which need to be reconciled. > There is NO TRANSFORMATION of a "Volume 1 total >surplus-value" (dM*) to the "Volume 3 total surplus-value" (dM) in >Capital. yes, in your interpretation: I know that. and as I told you, also in mine: until my step (iii). where Marx stops. > >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. yes, because he stopped to (iii): but (i) to (iii) may be interpreted diferently from you. > >Comradely, >Fred > comradely 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 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT