From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 10:42:32 EDT
At 8:57 -0400 12-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote: >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? first, there's no textual evidence in your sense (it is an interpretation of yours, of text which may be read otherwise, applying later categories to Marx). I agree completely with the comments by Chris on this. > >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. up to this point we more or less agree. and in fact, I have never denied any of this points in my writings and posts. >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. > then I suggest changing the terminology. unfortunately when we use macro and micro we use terms which are loaded by a story. so when I speak of macromonetary I have behind me a story (on monetary, which refers to Wicksell, Schumpeter etc; and on macro, which refers to Keynes: and the meaning is exactly that). in your case I doubt that you simply reread total surplus value prior to division into individual parts through the lenses of the macro-micro distinction. if not, my usual objection to you is stronger: then your justification for having the total surplus value (well, in your case only the surplus money, rather than the surplus value in other senses, differently from Marx) as given is simply what (you take as the) Marx's position.. but that's debatable. however, I didn't wanted to engage in another infinite discussion. I take simply as cleared that your reading of Hic Rhodus his salta! haas not given an indisputable proof of your reading. that's enough. I don't want to convince you are wrong, or not to believe that the textual evidence is on your side. simply, that your textual evidence is controvertible. r -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm What are you working on, Herr K was asked. Herr K replied: "I am working hard, I am carefully preparing my next error" Bertolt Brecht
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT