From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 23:07:15 EST
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote: > Hi again Fred. Earlier, in [8139], you wrote: > > > my equation summarizing Marx's theory of surplus-value > > S = m (L - Ln) > > 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. > > I commented then in [8140]: > > > 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? > > In [8144], you then clarified: > > > 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. > > If we say that the equation S = m (L - Ln) provides an explanation for > the "direct causes" of surplus value, then our theory for the "direct > causes" of surplus value is the same as a transhistorical theory of the > surplus product (with the caveat that money is part of the equation). > IMO, this equation can not adequately express the 'essential' (note > change in terminology) character of surplus _value_ for precisely this > reason. For the same reason, I believe it fails as a _measure_ for > the magnitude of surplus-value since it identifies the magnitude of surplus- > value as the same as the magnitude of surplus product in any mode of > production provided only that the surplus product comes to be > expressed by money. It is precisely the *specific class relation* > between wage-labor and capital (and how that class relation is imbedded > in the formula M-C-M' where M is used to purchase LP and MP, i.e. > where both LP and MP take the commodity-form) that accounts for > surplus _value_. You might say that you agree with this -- but the > point is that it doesn't show in your equation for the "direct" cause(s) > of suplus-value. Jerry, I am not saying that this equation is ALL of Marx's theory of surplus-value. This equation is part of a more general theory of surplus-value. In Chapter 6 of Volume 1, the necessary precondition for the production of surplus-value is shown to be the existence of labor-power on the market (i.e. the existence of wage-labor). So Marx's theory certainly includes the class relation that you emphasize. Surplus-value can only be produced by wage-labor. But then in Chapter 7, the magnitude of surplus-value is explained - by the magnitude of surplus labor. The class relation by itself does not explain the magnitude of surplus-value. The magnitude of surplus-value can only be explained by the further theory presented in Chapter 7, which is summarized by the above equation. > > 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. > > I agree that there is a 'layering' of concepts related to surplus-value. > What I don't agree with is your division between "direct" and "indirect" > causes. That is, I don't think "direct" and "indirect" causes can > satisfactorily grasp the character of the 'layering' of those concepts. > > Perhaps you think that the _ordering_ of the concepts in terms of the > presentation determines what is 'direct' vs. what is an 'indirect' cause. > That might work well in terms of interpreting many theories, but I don't > think it adequately captures Marx's theory. What I mean by surplus labor as a "direct cause" of surplus-value is that an increase of surplus labor by a given amount (due to whatever further causes) increases the magnitude of surplus-value by a proportional amount. What I mean by "indirect causes" are the further causes of surplus labor (increased power of capitalists, increase of productivity, etc.). I think this adequately expresses Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:00:01 EST