From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 10:49:18 EST
Hi Paulo, As I understand you, you argue that my equation summarizing Marx's theory of surplus-value S = m (L - Ln) does not explain why surplus-value exists, but is only a necessary condition for the existence of surplus-value. (is this correct?). Would you also say that L and Ln are not "causes" or "determinants" of the magnitude of surplus-value? I argue that this equation does provide an explanation of the DIRECT CAUSES of surplus-value - L and Ln (given m). A given change in L or Ln will CAUSE a change in surplus-value, by a determined amount, determined by the above equation. I agree that this equation does not provide an explanation of the INDIRECT CAUSES (or ULTIMATE causes) of surplus-value - the causes or determinants of L and Ln. Marx's theory has quite a lot to say about the determinants of L and Ln (class struggle, productivity, etc.), and you are correct that this equation does not capture all of this further theory of the indirect or ultimate causes of surplus-value. But it does express Marx's theory of the direct causes of surplus-value, which is the basis of the further theory of the indirect causes. Do you agree or disagree? Thanks to Jerry for providing the passage on "digestion". I don't think this is a good analogy. This analogy is about the distinction between labor-power and actual labor, not about the distinction between the direct and indirect causes of surplus-value. A further note: my critique of value-form theory is that it does not provide an explanation of the direct causes of surplus-value, because it does not accept L and Ln as independent determinants of P and S. And without a theory of the direct causes, there cannot be a theory of the indirect causes. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 00:00:00 EST