From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 30 2002 - 10:31:33 EST
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Christopher Arthur wrote: > Fred >> We have agreed that Marx's theory in Volume 1 is about >> the total class relation between the capitalist class as a whole >> and the working class as a whole. The most important aspect >> of this relation is the production of surplus-value by workers >> for capitalists. Therefore, it seems to me that Volume 1 is >> about the total surplus-value produced by the working class >> as a whole. >> >> How could it not be? How could Volume 1 be about the >> total class relation between capitalists and workers and not >> be about the total surplus-value produced by the working class >> as a whole? >> > > Hm. Pity Marx is not around so you cold ask him how he > managed to discuss the capital relation for hundreds of pages > without mentioning total SV. > C But Marx did say explicitly in a number of places that his theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 was about the total surplus-value, as I have documented in my papers: 1. Chapter 5: "the capitalist class as a whole cannot defraud itself." The same point is made in an earlier draft in the Manuscript of 1861-63 2. Chapter 11: the total surplus-value is equal to the surplus-value per worker times the number of workers employed The same point in earlier drafts in the Grundrisse and the Manuscript of 1861-63 3. Chapter 25: the effects of accumulation of the total social capital on the working class as a whole. 4. The key outline of Volumes 1 and 3 at the end of the Manuscript of 1861-63 in which Marx states that the quantitative conclusions of Volume 1 "hold good for the total social capital". 5. Chris, you yourself pointed out to me this summer that Marx said in two letters soon after the publication of the first edition of Volume 1 that one of the two (or three) best points in his book is the "treatment of surplus-value independently of its particular forms of profit, interest, rent, etc." 6. Marx's theory of the division of the total surplus-value into these individual parts is presented in Volume 3 of Capital. This theory of the distribution of surplus-value takes as given the total amount of surplus-value that is to be distributed. This total amount of surplus-value that is taken as given in Volume 3 has already been determined by Marx's theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. Where else could the total surplus-value that is taken as given in Volume 3 be determined, if not in Volume 1, where Marx's theory of surplus-value is presented? Beyond that, perhaps Marx thought that it is obvious that, since this theory of surplus-value in Volume 1 is about the total class relation between the working class as a whole and the capitalist class as a whole, the individual capitals discussed in Volume 1 represent the total social capital and the individual amounts of surplus-value represent the total surplus-value produced by the working class as a whole. But I agree that Marx should have emphasized this important point more clearly. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 00:00:01 EST