From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 08:57:26 EDT
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote: > At 13:33 -0400 9-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > > >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'. Riccardo, what exactly do you strongly disagree with here? That the total surplus-value is determined in Volume 1 and taken as given in Volume 3? Then how do you explain all the textual evidence that supports this interpretation? The terminology macro-micro was unknown to Marx, but not the distinction between the total surplus-value and its individual parts. This distinction was emphasized by Marx throughout the various drafts of Capital and the assumption that the total amount of surplus-value is determined prior to its individual parts. And, in discussing Marx's theory, this is what I mean by macro/micro - the prior determination of the total surplus-value, prior to its division into individual parts. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT