From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 18:23:53 EDT
glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu wrote: > Re Fred's [7805]: > > > Jerry, the magnitude of s that is taken as given in Volume 3 has > > already been determined in Volume 1. It does not have to be > > determined later; it has already been determined, by the quantity > of surplus labor. Do you see what I mean? > > Fred, the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume > One was made under the *assumption* that the entire surplus-value > created in production would be actualized in exchange. Therefore > the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume Three has not been determined > except for the *special case* where the entire surplus-value is actualized. In other words, the magnitude of s in Volume 3 will equal the magnitude that is given in Volume One *if any only if* the reality corresponds to this restrictive assumption. But, one would think that during the contractionary phase of the trade cycle this assumption will _not_ hold as there are unsold inventories of commodities. Thus, if we are going to talk about the magnitude of surplus-value during periods of crisis then this restrictive assumption must be dropped. Do you see what I mean? I think here you should not use the same phrase surplus - value to refer to two different things - the value produced over and above the share going to labour, and - the money profits of the capitalist class. These are categories at different levels of abstraction. The laws governing the latter are quite different from the laws governing the former - indeed as Kalecki indicates the causal relations involved appear almost inverted in the case of profits. > > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 22 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT