From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 09:07:08 EDT
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > 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. Francisco, thanks for your reply. How do you think Marx explained "how surplus-value is produced" without a quantitative determination of surplus-value? (Or how could he?) I thought you argued in previous posts that Marx's "qualitative" theory of surplus-value cannot be separated from his quantitative theory of suprlus-value (which I agree with). The issue of the quantitative determination of the total surplus-value in Volume 1 has to do with the logical relation between the magnitudes in Volume 1 and Volume 3 (especially the total surplus-value) and with the infamous "transformation problem" in Part 2 of Volume 3. That is why I think it is important. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT