From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 21:44:07 EST
Hi Jerry, thanks for your comments. A couple of brief responses below. On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > 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? I agree that equating "indirect" cause and "ultimate" cause may be misleading - in the sense that the indirect causes of surplus-value that I have mentioned (class struggle, productivity) - which are causes of the direct causes of total labor (L) and necessary labor (Ln) - are themselves caused by still other determinants. So I will just stick to the distinction between "direct" causes and "indirect" causes. What I am suggesting is that there is a "layering" of explanations of surplus-value: the first layer is the identification of L and Ln as the direct causes of surplus-value. The second layer is the identification of the causes of L and Ln - class struggle, productivity, etc. A third layer would be the identification of the causes or determinants of class struggle, productivity, etc. > > <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. I would say that, without an explanation of the indirect causes of surplus-value, one does not have a complete (or even satisfactory) explanation of surplus-value, but at least one has a partial explanation of surplus- value. On the other hand, without an explanation of the direct causes of surplus-value, one cannot have ANY explanation of the indirect causes, because the indirect causes are the causes of the direct causes. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 10 2002 - 00:00:00 EST