[OPE-L:8149] Re: Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 11:07:47 EST


Quoting "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu>:

> 
> 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.  




The problem Fred is to explain why wages do not rise so high as to
consume all of the product.

> 
> 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 : Wed Dec 11 2002 - 00:00:01 EST