From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 09:34:30 EDT
Hi Paul: Listproc has been down since Saturday (it is Monday AM at the time that this is being written) so I don't have an OPE-L ID# for your post. Re Paul C's response to [OPE-L:7810] 'Hic Rhodus, hic salta!' Dated Sun, October 13 Previously I wrote: > > 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? Paul C responded: > 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. Here's the way I look at the question: Unlike the form that the surplus product takes within other modes of production, under capitalism the surplus product necessarily takes the form of surplus-value and hence is expressed as money (since under generalized commodity production where capitalism prevails the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money becomes a necessary form of appearance of the value-form). Indeed, under capitalism the value of labour-power and value in general necessarily come to be expressed as money due to the nature of the commodity-form. Thus, the generalization of the money-form is a *necessary presumption* for the creation of value. Without the money-form the relationship between the producers and the ruling class (and with it their shares of wealth) would take an essentially different form. As for the level of abstraction, the *possibility* that value may not become actualized can be seen at the level of abstraction of _Capital_ (Volume 1, Chapter 1!!!). Where this possibility that lies latent within the commodity-form is *systematically* developed and transformed from mere formal possibility to a *necessary* subject concerning the dynamics of the accumulation of capital is unclear. Where do you think that subject belongs within the overall ordering of a systematic reconstruction in thought of capitalism? Also, -- putting the question using the same terms you expressed above -- what specifically is the level of abstraction where the laws governing the share of wealth going to laborers and the share going to capitalists is systematically developed? Moreover, what 'laws' are you thinking of in this context? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 24 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT