From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 17:34:22 EDT
Why not think in different terms? Why not suppose that Marx was trying to explain
how surplus value is produced? How it could be augmented (absolutely, relatively)?
What were the consequences of the predominat ways of increasing surplus value? I
would like to understand better why it is so important the question of quantity
determination of surplus value? You could clarify me on this issue. But then again,
it is not a problem of you being obscure. It is more likely that I got lost in the
debate. That happens very often.
Paulo
"Fred B. Moseley" wrote:
> Francisco, thanks for your comment.
>
> My point was that Hegel seems to have interpreted this proverb differently
> from the original meaning - to suggest that the task of philosophy is to
> "comprehend what is". So what is unclear (or may be unclear) is whether
> Marx's intended meaning was Hegel's meaning or what was the original
> meaning. I certainly agree this is not conclusive evidence to support my
> interpretation (I have presented much more evidence in several
> papers). But we know that Marx knew Hegel thoroughly - especially the
> famous Preface to the Philosophy of Right - and that Marx like to refer to
> Hegel, so I think my suggestion of Marx's use of this proverb is at least
> a possibility.
>
> More generally and substantially, do you agree that Marx's aim was to
> explain the actual total surplus-value, and that his method was to
> determine the actual total surplus-value in Volume 1 and then to explain
> the division of this total surplus-value into individual parts in Volume
> 3?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote:
>
> > My dictionary of Latin and Greek sentences says that sometimes Hic Rhodus, hic
> > salta is used to mean (unproperly) "here is the difficulty". The impression I
> > have from the context is that Marx is using the phrase exactly in this
> > imprecise and "distorted" way.
> > Historically it refers to someone who was proud of the jump he gave when in
> > Rhodes. So someone said: Rhodes is here, jump here. This does not fit well
> > with the context in which Marx employed the phrase.
> > Fredīs interpretation, or use of the that as evidence for his view, seems
> > farfetched to me. At most that would establish the difficulty to overcome, or
> > as Marx says, the conditions of the problem (sale at value and at the same
> > time obtaining more value). Precisely the unprecise way of using that phrase
> > according to my dictionary.
> > Paulo
> >
> > "Fred B. Moseley" wrote:
> >
> > > I think I have discovered strong philosophical evidence to further support
> > > my interpretation that the purpose of Marx's theory of surplus-value in
> > > Volume 1 is to explain the ACTUAL total surplus-value in the real
> > > capitalist economy as a whole, not to explain a hypothetical total
> > > surplus-value proportional to the labor-time embodied in surplus goods.
> > >
> > > 1. The evidence begins with Marx's famous quote from Aesop's fables at
> > > the end of Chapter 5:
> > > "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > > This would suggest that Marx's use of the same quote must illustrate a
> > > similar view - that the task of a scientific theory of capitalism is to
> > > apprehend and comprehend WHAT IS, rather that what ought to be. And, I
> > > would add, rather than to comprehend hypothetical magnitudes that are
> > > different from "what is". Marx's circulation of capital - M-C-M' - refers
> > > to "what is". The initial M - and its two components C and V - refer to
> > > actual quantities of money-capital invested in means of production and
> > > labor-power. C and V are not hypothetical magnitudes, different from the
> > > actual quantities of money-capital, proportional to the labor-times
> > > embodied in the means of production and means of subsistence. And dM is
> > > the actual total quantity of surplus-value produced in the real capitalist
> > > economy as a whole, not a hypothetical quantity proportional to the
> > > labor-time embodied in surplus goods.
> > >
> > > 2. Then I looked up this quote in Hegel's Preface (which I had never read
> > > before, but had a copy because I have been intending to read it for
> > > years). I am a Hegel novice, but, from reading this Preface, Fowkes'
> > > interpretation certainly seems accurate. This quote is followed by the
> > > sentence:
> > >
> > > "To comprehend WHAT IS, this is the task of philosophy, because what is,
> > > is reason." (emphasis added)
> > >
> > > Two pages later, in the last sentence of the Preface, Hegel reiterates
> > > that the task of philosophy is "a scientific discussion of the THING
> > > ITSELF". (emphasis added).
> > >
> > > I hope you Hegel specialists on the list will comment on this important
> > > point. Is Fowkes' interpretation of Hegel correct?
> > >
> > > In endorsing Hegel's view of the task of philosophy, Marx seems to be
> > > suggesting that the task of a theory of capital is a "scientific
> > > discussion of the THING ITSELF", i.e. of the real, actual existing
> > > capitalist economy. And, in particular, Marx's theory of surplus-value,
> > > which is of course what Chapter 5 and the rest of Volume 1 is about,
> > > attempts to apprehend and comprehend the actual total surplus-value in the
> > > real capitalist economy as a whole ("what is" or "the thing
> > > itself"). Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is not intended to
> > > comprehend a different hypothetical total surplus-value that we calculate
> > > from our theoretical model. The quotation follows directly after Marx
> > > starkly posed the all-important question of the origin of
> > > surplus-value. The reference to Hegel's view that the task of philosophy
> > > is to "comprehend what is" must be intended to indicate that the task of
> > > his theory of capitalism is to comprehend the actual surplus-value
> > > produced in the real capitalist economy as a whole.
> > >
> > > Comradely,
> > > Fred
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT