From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 20:14:12 EDT
Re Paul C's [7850]: Previously in wrote in [7845]: > 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. Paul C responded: > I agree that money is a necessary feature of capitalism, but that does > not make surplus value and money profit the same thing for three reasons: Before I get to your reasons, *I never identified surplus-value with profit above* (or elsewhere that I can recall). > 1. The concept of surplus value is established at the level of the basic > relations of production and rests on the difference between necessary and > surplus labour time. Marx's analysis in vol 1 is concerned with establishing > that surplus value is regulated by the relationship between necessary and > surplus labour time, and to establishing that surplus value can thus only be > increased by either extending the working day - absolute surplus value, or > reducing necessary labour - relative surplus value. Yes, but the labour-time that creates surplus-value is SNLT. What labor constitutes SNLT can only be known when (if) the commodity product (C) is sold for money (M'). One can of course assume that products that were produced in order to be sold actually sell but one can observe in the mere assumption (presumption) that C is sold that there is the formal possibility that it will not be. Similarly, in examining an assumption of equilibrium one can identify disequilibrium conditions. And, indeed, in the C-M' movement we can see the possibility of disequilibrium which can only be ruled out by assumption. Sometimes what a theory doesn't explain tells us more about a theory than that which is developed. Mike L sometimes has referred to "silences" in Marx. We have to interrogate "silences" and ask what part they play within an overall systematic comprehension in thought of capitalism rather than simply accept assumptions. Thus my point to Fred about the role of "givens" in Marx's theory -- if something is taken to be given now at one stage in the reconstruction in thought of the object (capitalism) then one must be able to specify *what* later stage in the analysis it will _no longer be_ given (but is instead shown to be either a result or modified) and then one has to develop that comprehension. > 2. The identification of surplus value with profit is also wrong because > profit is only part of surplus value. Interest, rent and unproductive > expenditure constitute major other portions of surplus value. Profit is > thus a form of revenue, Good points. > or more properly an accounting category operating > at the level of individual property relations and subdivisions of property. > Its magnitude can thus vary as a result of the proportionate division of > revenues within the propertied classes, quite independently of the > magnitude of surplus value. And non-propertied classes since a substantial proportion of the wages paid to the working class take the form of deductions from surplus value when (a portion of) those revenues are expended on salaries for workers \who are unproductive (of surplus value) workers. The way I understand the question, after the sale of C for M' then the revenues can be divided into productive consumption and unproductive consumption of that surplus-value. This division forms a formal limit to the accumulation of capital since only that portion of s which is productively consumed can expand the accumulation of capital. A former undergraduate mentor, Jim Becker, discussed this subject at length in his book _Marxian Political Economy_. While I don't necessarily agree with all that he wrote on this topic, I think it has been a largely undeveloped subject. > 3. As an accounting category, Do other listmembers classify profit as _only_ a "accounting category"? > profit is not determined by the magnitude of > surplus labour time, instead it is driven by Kalecki's equation > P = I + cc > where P is profit, I is investment and cc is capitalist consumption. This > equation is of course just another way of writing the reproduction formulae > of vol 2. And it is conceptually the same as what I described in the paragraph above that began "The way I understand the question ....". > Profit therefore is driven by the expenditure of the capitalist class, and > again for this reason can vary quite independently of the magnitude of > surplus value. No argument. > The key factor that varies in Kalecki's equations is of course > employment. That hasn't been established above. Perhaps we should go on to consider that question? > The level of abstraction used is one in which the divisions of surplus value > are ignored and one just looks at the social labour budget and works out > how many social working hours per day are required to reproduce the > working population at its current level of consumption. > One is not at this stage concerned with the monetary equations operating > at the level of the national accounts which determine the accounting profit > of the corporate sector, the flow of funds between it and the banking sector > etc. At the level of analysis national accounts don't all contradictions come into play? Or is that only the world market? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 26 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT