[OPE-L:8140] Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

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