From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 07:01:52 EDT
Andrew, the realisation of surplus value in its different forms is obviously temporal, the productive worker does not create rent per se. This is the case for the system as a whole and the individual circuit. Paul Bullock ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Brown" <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > Hi Michael L. (and all), > > Many thanks for the reply. You wrote: > > "2. Fred, Jerry is right: I was not proposing that surplus value and > profit are different magnitudes; on the contrary, as Andrew reminds us, > 'essence must appear' , and I have no reason to think that it appears in > a different magnitude (except, of course, for the subdivision of surplus > value). On the other hand, I do not view surplus value as prior in time > (as opposed to logic) to its form(s). Therefore, for me, distribution > (including 'transformation') is a logical rather than a temporal > process. I'm assuming that you > disagree--- that there is a state in time in which surplus value exists > prior to its distribution." > > I respond: in my exchange with Rakesh I have been trying to offer an > important (imo) distinction between system-wide and individual > perspectives. I think this distinction helpful not only for debates > regarding value-form theory but also for an aspect of your exchange with > Fred. You say above that you disagree with the view that surplus value > exists in time (rather than logic) prior to its distribution. I agree if > we take a system-wide perspective on surplus value. From this > perspective then we can see that a large proportion of newly produced > commodities must generally sell (realising surplus value) if the system > is to exist at all. But what happens when we take the perspective of any > one single commodity? From this perspective we are justified in > presupposing the existence of the system. Given this presupposition then > it seems to me entirely proper to say the surplus value exists, in an > important sense, once surplus labour has been performed in production, > and prior to 'realisation' of the surplus value on the market (it exists > as C', prior to C'-M'). What needs to be realised by the capitalist is > the actual existence of the power that surplus value confers, viz. an > excess of purchasing power, of money, over the initial money advanced. > This may be a precarious process (it may breakdown thus destroying > surplus value) but it is not a process of surplus value creation rather > is a metamorphosis of an already created surplus value from one form to > another. It takes time. > > I admit that the above is tentative. What I have done is apply the same > logic to surplus value and its form of appearance (dM) as I did to value > and its form of appearance (M). I think this must cut some corners and I > would gladly admit that there is 'a sense' in which surplus value is not > achieved until dM is realised, even at the individual level. This is a > complex matter. But it should be clear that it is one thing to note, > from the perspective of the system, that money, and money categories > (profit, interest, etc.) must exist simultaneously to value and surplus > value (essence must appear). This is a fact about the existence of the > system. It is quite another to consider the temporal (and spatial) path > taken by any one particular commodity-value. It is surely helpful to > continually monitor this distinction of perspectives and avoid slipping > from one to the other without properly respecting the difference between > them. I suspect such slippage has sometimes occurred in debates re. > value-form theory. > > Many thanks, > > Andy > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT