From: glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 10:36:30 EDT
Re Fred's [7812]: > My point has been that the theory of the distribution of > surplus-value in Volume 3 takes the total surplus-value as given, and that > this total surplus-value that is taken is given in Volume 3 has been > determined by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. This total > surplus-value is not affected by the distribution of surplus-value, i.e. by > the equalization of profit rates across industries and the further division > of this total surplus-value into interest, rent, etc. Both Volume 1 and > Volume 3 are at a high level of abstraction and assume that there is no > realization problem. The more concrete analysis of crises and realization > problems would be at a lower level of abstraction, beyond the three volumes > of Capital. Do you agree or disagree? [As expressed above:]We agree on this point. Yet, it seems to me that the very recognition of agreement on this issue raises other questions that need to be addressed. E.g. *where specifically* is the lower level of abstraction where the magnitude of s is no longer taken as given and the more concrete analysis of crises and realization problems is required? This seems to me to be a question of 'basic theory' rather than only a question associated with the analysis of a specific conjunctural event. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT