From: Cyrus Bina (binac@MRS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Tue Feb 17 2004 - 17:44:55 EST
Hi Jerry,
Me too! I'm due to be departing for a talk (that has yet to be put
together) to Atlanta. Therefore, I have to be brief.
1. You indicated:
"To the extent that the transfer of surplus value is not
only a theoretical
subject but is also an actual social and historical
process that occurs
during the course of capitalist accumulation, it should
be observable and measurable."
I have no problem with that. My objection is to pretension that that
could give us a *separate rate of exploitation* by "second-guessing" of the
actual process itself.
2. You wrote:
> I have raised the question of disaggregation in this
thread. Let me now
> pose a related question about levels of aggregation. If
the topic for
> discussion primarily concerns whether there is one rate of
surplus value
> which is a macroeconomic rate, then how can the position
that there
> is one macroeconomic rate be reconciled with the fact that
there are many
> macroeconomies (each with different historically and
culturally
> constituted values of labour-power and SNLT)? If you were
to ask me
> why this is important, I would say that is is important
from the perspective
> of explaining the _international_ production and transfer
of surplus value.
> Secondarily, it is important from the perspective of
Marxian empirical
> research.
a) In the case of separate macroeconomies (i.e., economies with
different norms for appropriation of labor power, SNLT, etc.) different rate
of exploitation is in order.
b) The 'transfer of value' transnationally takes place in the
globalized industries, and such it would matter. Yet, as long as the
'national norms' pertaining to the appropriation of labor, and thus the
SNLT, are still in existence, we have different rate of exploitation in each
of these 'national' entities.
3. You wrote:
> Whether there is a general rate of profit and the
formation of prices
> of production in contemporary capitalism -- and whether
there is one
> rate of profit internationally -- can not be presumed.
There are,
> for example, huge disparities in individual profit rates
for reasons other
> than those considered by Marx: e.g. price determination
in
> oligopolistic markets where non-homogeneous (but similar)
commodities
> are being sold by firms which engage in the competitive
strategy of
> product differentiation.
One has to be careful about taking the data and interpreting them in
Marxian terms. For instance, 'profit margin' is not the same as the rate of
profit. Besides, in my response, I do not claim that there is one rate of
profit transnationally. I fully concur with your statement that there are
huge disparities in individual profit rates for other reasons. Here, we are
talking at two different levels of analysis; your argument is the most
concrete and operational levels of analysis. And that's fine with me. All
I am saying is that speaking of different profit rates in such a manner has
less to do with the rate of exploitation in Marx.
4. You remarked:
>Isn't the entire social capital to be understood
_globally_?
Yes. But the concept of global 'social capital' belongs to the fully
globalized industries. This does not necessarily contradicts my argument
the formation of rate of exploitation at the social capital within the
national entities. Let me repeat again: I do not object to any empirical
research. My objection is to the assertion that individualizes Marx's rate
of exploitation (i.e., an exploitation that is having to do with a
particular norm of labor appropriation and associates with particular
socially necessary abstract labor in capitalism) for individual capital by
way of decomposition whatever it may be constructed. This bring us to the
notion of 'labor aristocracy' and erroneous attribution of exploitation to
it, rather than identifying it as a another category of bourgeois control
and oppression.
With all good wishes,
Warmly,
Cyrus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald A. Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:43 AM
Subject: (OPE-L) Re: transfers of surplus value among capitalists
> Hi Cyrus. I only have time now for a small bite.
>
> > Let me ask on behalf of our deceased colleague and friend: Why do we
need
> > to measure the transfer of value and surplus value between firms and
> > industries? And what do we want to measure by that?
>
> To the extent that the transfer of surplus value is not only a theoretical
> subject but is also an actual social and historical process that occurs
> during the course of capitalist accumulation, it should be observable and
> measurable.
>
>
> > The results of such
> > transfers are apparent in the formation of the rate of profit already.
>
> Whether there is a general rate of profit and the formation of prices
> of production in contemporary capitalism -- and whether there is one
> rate of profit internationally -- can not be presumed. There are,
> for example, huge disparities in individual profit rates for reasons other
> than those considered by Marx: e.g. price determination in
> oligopolistic markets where non-homogeneous (but similar) commodities
> are being sold by firms which engage in the competitive strategy of
> product differentiation.
>
> > The rate of exploitation (measured by
> > the rate of surplus value), therefore, is a macroeconomic entity that
> > belongs to the entire social capital.
>
> Isn't the entire social capital to be understood _globally_?
>
> > I am delighted that we are having these
> > conversations regardless of the extent to which we agree (or disagree)
> > with each other in this magnificent forum. Thanks.
>
> Ditto.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 00:00:01 EST