From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Dec 07 2002 - 12:39:48 EST
Re Fred's [8139] which was a reply to Paolo's [8135]: > 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. You are using the expressions "indirect causes" and "ultimate causes" synonymously above. This is, I think, an unusual usage of these terms. What is your basis for identifying "indirect causes" of surplus value with "ultimate causes" of surplus value? > <snip, JL> And > without a theory of the direct causes, there cannot be a theory of the > indirect causes. One could just as easily say that unless one has a theory of the ultimate causes of surplus value then one can not have a theory of the direct causes of surplus value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 00:00:00 EST