From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Tue Oct 15 2002 - 13:54:33 EDT
Fred writes > >> 2) I want to draw your attention to the fact that your presentation of >> your theory has drifted. In recent mails you say the above. But earlier >> you said something different. You said Marx does not need to determine >> total SV at all because it is an empirical given, a premise not a >> result. On this version of your theory you start from social dM as a >> problem and then you have various stages of its *explanation*. First you >> try to explain it using the categories of V1 but with a macro twist >> (which Marx's V1 does not have, but I have no objection); but this is >> only provisonal because this categorial mesh is too crude; so the second >> stage of the explanation you draw from V3; I assume you would then need >> a third stage of explanation to cope with the realisation issues raised >> by Jerry. > > >Chris, I never said that "Marx does not need to determine total SV because >it is an empirical given, a premise not a result." > That is the way I read 7714 and 23. >What I have said is that the total surplus-value is determined in Volume >1, under the assumption that there is no realization problem. This total >surplus-value determined in Volume 1 is the actual total surplus-value in >periods in which there is in fact no realization problem. > >The distribution of this total surplus-value is then determined in Volume >3, again under the assumption that there is no realization problem. The >crucial point is that the total amount of surplus-value does not change in >Volume 3 as a result of the distribution of surplus-value (i.e. total >profit = total surplus-value). There is no further determination of the >magnitude of the total surplus-value in Volume 3. That has been my main >point all along. > OK Chris 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 17 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT