From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 08:35:42 EST
Fred, I am interested in reading your papers but was not able to open them. Paulo "Fred B. Moseley" wrote: > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Andrew Brown wrote: > > > Hi there Fred, > > > > Have been re-reading your stuff lately and have to admit to > > struggling to grasp the meaning of the following: > > > > > Yes, this is logically possible, but wouldn't it be better if the > > > total surplus-value that is taken in Volume 3 were already determined > > > by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1? Wouldn't that be a > > > stronger theory than just taking the total surplus-value as given, > > > without a theoretical determination? > > > > > > In any case, that is what Marx said he was doing - that the total > > > surplus-value taken as given in Volume 3 has already been determined > > > by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1; i.e. by surplus labor. > > > > Especially, what does 'theoretical determination' mean? > > > > How does it related to 'cause'? > > > > For me, Vol 1 tells us for sure that the substance of SV is surplus > > labour but it provides no guarantees that the appearance form, viz, > > 'dM', is proportional in magnitude to the substance, viz. surplus > > labour. > > Hi Andy, thanks for your comments. > > What I mean by "theoretical determination" is that the total quantity of > surplus-value is determined in Volume 1 by the following equation: > > S = n [ m (LT - LN ) ] = n [ m ( LS ) ] > > where LT is the total working time for the average worker, LN is the > necessary labor-time for the average worker, m is the money value added > per hour, and n is the number of workers employed in the capitalist > economy as a whole. > > The "cause" of surplus-value is surplus labor, in the sense of the above > equation, i.e. surplus-value is proportional to surplus labor. Every hour > that the average workers works over and above necessary labor produces m > amount of surplus-value for capitalists. > > This basic theory of the determination of the total surplus-value is not > revised or modified in the later volumes of Capital. No new variables are > later added to this basic equation of the determination of the total > surplus-value. This theory is amplified by exploring further the complex > determination of the key variables on the right-hand side of this equation > (LT and LN). But the basic theory of surplus-value, as represented by > this equation, remains the same. > > This total quantity of surplus-value, as determined in Volume 1, is then > taken as given (i.e. as predetermined) in the Volume 3 theory of the > distribution of surplus-value, or the division of this given, > predetermined total amount of surplus-value into individual parts. Marx > repeats this assumption in every part of Volume 3 (except Part 3), as I > have documented in two papers (these two papers are attached to this > message): > > "The Development of Marx's of the Distribution of Surplus-value" > in Moseley and Campbell (eds), *New Investigations of Marx's Method* > > "Hostile Brothers: Marx's Theory of the Distribution of Surplus-value > in Volume 3 of Capital" > in Reuten (ed.), *The Culmination of Capital* > > For example in Part 2, the general rate of profit is determined by the > ratio of the total surplus-value to the total capital invested, and the > total surplus-value in the numerator is taken as given (as determined in > Volume 1). Similarly in Part 4, the determination of the general rate of > profit is modified to include commercial capital in the denominator; but > the total surplus-value in the numerator remains the same, and continues > to be taken as given (as determined in Volume 1). And in Parts 5 and 6, > the total surplus-value is again taken as given and the theory is about > how this total surplus-value is divided into profit and interest and rent. > > And then in Part 7, Marx says in a number of places that the total > surplus-value as already determined provides the limit for the parts into > which this total surplus-value is divided. For example, the passage I > quoted in my last post in response to Paolo, an excerpt of which is: > > "We have thus an *absolute limit* for the value component that forms > surplus-value and can be broken down into profit and ground-rent; this is > determined by the *excess of the unpaid portion of the working day over > its paid portion*, i.e. by the value component of the total product in > which this *surplus labor* is realized... The *transformation of values > into prices of production does not abolish the limits to profit, but > simply affects its distribution among the various particular capitals of > which the social capital is composed* ..."(C.III: 998-1000; emphasis > added) > > And then there is the clear statement in the Grundrisse that the > equalization of the profit rate across industries does not affect its > total magnitude "ever": > > *The total surplus-value ... can neither grow or decrease by this > operation* [the equalization of rates of profit. FM], ever; what is > modified thereby is not it, but only its distribution among the different > capitals. (G. 684; emphasis added) > > So we can see that Marx's theory does "provide a guarantee" that the total > surplus-value distributed in Volume 3 is equal to the total surplus-value > produced in Volume 1 (i.e. is proportional to surplus labor). The > guarantee is that this is what Marx ASSUMED. In Volume 3, Marx took the > total surplus-value as given, as determined in Volume 1, i.e. by the above > equation. Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3 > is about how this given, predetermined total amount of surplus-value is > divided into individual parts. > > Dumenil has written that the equality between total profit and total > surplus-value is a TAUTOLOGY. Dumenil is correct in this respect. This > aggregate equality is not a result which may or may not be true, depending > on the composition of capital of wage goods and surplus goods, but is an > initial assumption in Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value > in Volume 3. > > > Andy, I hope this helps to clarify. I look forward to your response and > to further discussion. > > Comradely, > Fred > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: DISTSV.doc > DISTSV.doc Type: Download File (APPLICATION/MSWORD) > Encoding: BASE64 > > Name: VOL3.DOC > VOL3.DOC Type: Download File (APPLICATION/MSWORD) > Encoding: BASE64
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EST