From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 21:40:45 EDT
Riccardo, I agree that there is seldom decisive textual evidence to support any interpretation of Marx's theory. However, for some issues, I think the textual evidence is clearly stronger for one interpretation than for another interpretation. For other issues, the textual evidence is more mixed and even. For example, I think that the textual evidence that the total surplus-value is taken as given in Volume 3 and does not change as a result of the determination of the individual parts of surplus-value in Volume 3 is clearly stronger than any alternative. When I say "the total surplus-value does not change," I mean "total profit = total surplus-value" in Part 2, and "total industrial profit + merchant profit = total surplus-value" in Part 4, and "total (industrial + merchant) profit + interest = total surplus-value' in Part 5, etc. I think the textual evidence to support this interpretation is much stronger than any interpretation (including the standard interpretation and your interpretation, as I understand it), according to which the total surplus-value changes, or according to which total profit is not equal to total surplus-value, etc. I really think this is pretty clear cut. We could go through Volume 3, part by part, as I have done in my papers, and in each part Marx stated that the total surplus-value is taken as given and is a prerequisite for the determination of each particular individual component of surplus-value. And by the method used to determine each individual component part of surplus-value (e.g. equal rates of profit in Part 2), it is clear that the total surplus-value does not and can not change as a result of the determination of this individual part (e.g. total profit = total surplus-value in Part 2). On the other hand, I think the textual evidence for the issue of the givens in Marx's theory - the determination of constant capital and variable capital - is more of a toss-up. I think there is substantial textual evidence to support both interpretations. I do not claim any conclusive textual evidence for this issue. In this latter case, when the textual evidence is inconclusive, then I argue (as in my last post) that one way to further assess these two interpretations is to examine the consistency of each interpretation with other aspects of Marx's logical method, and in particular, with the key aspect just discussed - that the total surplus-value is determined prior to its division into individual parts and does not change (in the sense described above) as a result of the determination of the individual parts of surplus-value in Volume 3. My interpretation of a given money wage and an unchanging variable capital is consistent with the prior determination and unchanging total surplus-value in Volume 3. 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. For example, total profit = total surplus-value in Part 2. On the other hand, the standard interpretation and Riccardo's interpretation of the determination of variable capital from a given real wage means, for example, that total profit will not equal total surplus-value in Part 2, thereby contradicting this other key aspect of Marx's method. Therefore, I conclude that 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 the other key aspect of Marx's method of an unchanging total surplus-value (in the sense described above). Riccardo, thanks again for the discussion. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT