From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 08:55:10 EDT
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: > I agree with you that Marx likely wanted the first and third > magnitudes as given thrroughout. I disagree with you that there is no > evidence that Marx didn't explicitely say in vol I that the real wage > is assumed to be given at the beginning of the period (is this true > in fact? no. exactly as it is not necessarily true that all that is > produced is sold). 1. Riccardo, I am glad that you agree that Marx "likely wanted" the total surplus-value to be unchanged in Volume 3. But I argue that this unchanging total surplus-value is much more than what Marx "likely wanted". This given, unchanging total surplus-value is the basic assumption of Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3, which is repeated as an assumption in each and every part of Volume 3, as I have shown in my papers. The total surplus-value is taken as given in Volume 3 because it has already been determined in Volume 1. That the total surplus-value remains unchanged in Volume 3 is not a conclusion or a result, which Marx "likely wanted" to demonstrate, but is instead Marx's basic assumption of Volume 3. I think the textual evidence on this point if very strong and consistent. Riccardo, would you agree with this stronger wording? 2. The main disagreement between Riccardo and me is the determination of variable capital in Volume 1 and Volume 3. I argue (along with the "new solution") that variable capital is TAKEN AS GIVEN, as the money-capital advanced by capitalists to purchase labor-power, and that this given money variable capital remains the same in both Volume 1 and Volume 3. Riccardo, on the other hand, argues (along with most other Marxists and interpreters of Marx) that variable capital is DERIVED FROM A GIVEN QUANTITY OF WAGE GOODS, and that therefore variable capital changes from Volume 1 to Volume 3. In Volume 1, variable capital is equal to the value of the given wage goods, and in Volume 3 variable capital is equal to the price of production of the same given wage goods. I argue that there is considerable textual evidence to support my interpretation that variable capital is taken as given, which I have presented in several papers. Riccardo has argued, and I agree, that there is also textual evidence that Marx takes as given the quantity of wage goods (or "means of subsistence") that provides the average, prevailing standard of living. However, this does not necessarily mean that this given quantity of wage goods is used to determine the magnitude of variable capital in Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. I argue that Marx's concept of variable capital refers to the ACTUAL money wages paid by capitalists to workers (in the real capitalist economy as a whole). However, according to Marx's logical method, this actual money wage cannot yet be determined in Volume 1, because this actual money wage is identically equal to the price of the given wage goods, and the price of wage goods cannot be determined in Volume 1. The determination of the price of wage goods has to do with the division of the surplus-value into individual parts, and this division of surplus-value can be explained only in Volume 3, after the total amount of surplus-value has been determined in Volume 1. Therefore, the actual money wage CANNOT be determined in Volume 1 by the given quantity of wage goods, and is instead TAKEN AS GIVEN in Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. The given actual variable capital is then used in Volume 1 to explain the actual surplus-value appropriated by capitalists (in the capitalist economy as a whole). So what role does the given quantity of wage goods play in Marx's theory? It provides, first of all in Volume 1, a partial explanation of the given actual variable capital in Volume 1 - that it is depends in part on the value of the given wage goods. Then in Volume 3, it provides a more complete explanation of the given actual variable capital - that it also depends on the equalization of profit rates across industries which determines the price of production of the given wage goods. But the given quantity of wage goods CANNOT be used to determine the actual variable capital in Volume 1, and therefore plays no role in the determination of the actual surplus-value in Volume 1 (as explained above). Instead, the actual variable capital is taken as given, and used to determine the actual surplus-value. On the other hand, Riccardo's assumption of the determination of variable capital by the given wage goods (first as the value of the given real wage in Volume 1 and then as the price of production of the given real wage in Volume 1) means that Riccardo's variable capital in Volume 1 is NOT equal to the actual money wages paid to workers, but is instead equal to a different magnitude, the value of the wage goods. Riccardo's variable capital in Volume 1 may be "actual" in some general sense of being real, but it is NOT actual in the particular sense of what capitalists actually pay to workers. Furthermore, since Riccardo's variable capital in Volume 1 is different from the actual money wages paid to workers, so also Riccardo's total surplus-value is also different from the actual total surplus-value appropriated by capitalists, and is instead equal to the value of surplus-goods. This "preliminary" total surplus-value must then be transformed into the surplus-value actually appropriated by capitalists in Volume 3. Another way to assess these two interpretations of the determination of variable capital is to examine the consistency of each interpretation with other aspects of Marx's logical method, and in particular, with the key aspect of Marx's method discussed above - the determination of the total surplus-value in Volume 1 prior to its division into individual parts in Volume 3. My interpretation of a given money wage and an unchanging variable capital is consistent with the prior determination of the total surplus-value. Since variable capital does not change from Volume 1 to Volume 3, and neither does the total new-value produced, the total surplus-value (the difference between new-value and variable capital) also does not change from Volume 1 to Volume 3 (it is determined in Volume 1 and taken as given in Volume 3). On the other hand, Riccardo's interpretation of the determination of variable capital from a given real wage means that the variable capital changes from Volume 1 to Volume 3. Therefore the total surplus-value also changes inversely, thereby contradicting Marx's basic assumption in Volume 3 of a given, unchanging total surplus-value. Therefore, taking variable capital as given, as the money wage advanced, is the more appropriate interpretation of Marx's method determination of variable capital, because only this assumption is consistent with Marx's basic assumption in Volume 3 of a given, unchanging total surplus-value. If, instead, one takes the real wage as given, this contradicts the basic assumption of Volume 3, and the whole logic of Volume 3 falls apart. Why impose on Marx an assumption about the determination of variable capital that contradicts his basic assumption regarding the determination of the total surplus-value and leads to further "logical errors" allegedly committed by Marx, since there is as much textual evidence to support the contrary assumption? Why not accept an interpretation of Marx's theory that is supported by substantial textual evidence and that makes Marx's theory a logically consistent whole? Riccardo, thanks again for the discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT