From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 11:29:57 EST
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Paul Bullock wrote: > Fred, > > what I had tried to say was that the terms 'demand' and 'supply' , as > your well known quotes show, are > taken by marx as terms used, and from a vocabulary used by, non > scientific, misleading and apologetic, forms of explanation. Marx does > not need to use them for his own purposes. The first quote you provide > establishes this, he shows that the idea of S=D is entirely misleading. > Obviously Marx is always taking up the bourgeois ideas of the time ... > but for us to confuse 'S=D' with his theoretical assumption that there > are no problems with realisation when he treats capital as whole, > ccnfuses empiricist terminology, which has a completely different class > interest and method, with marx's scientific vocabulary. > > Above you ask 'What is the difference?'... from the Ch 10 you quote we > can see that the difference is that for Marx ( p288 )..' The section of > society whose responsibility it is under the division of labour to spend > its labour on the production of these particular articles must receive > an equivalent in social labour represented in those articles that > satisfy its needs. There is no necessary connection, however, but > simply a fortuitous one etc etc...' Paul, I certainly agree that the connection between S and D is a "fortuitous one" in the real world. But I also argue that Marx assumed S = D in his theory of the production and distribution of surplus-value. For example, his theory of prices of production assumes equal rates of profit, which in turn assumes S = D in all industries. > This is the issue that Marx assumes not to present any problems when > eg he begins to deal eg with the reproduction schema. This assumption is > not the same as S=D, of Says use values and money exchanged for them. > On p291 we find exactly this: ' > > ' IF demand and supply cancel one another out, they cease to explain > anything, have no effect on market value and leave us completely in the > dark as to why this market value is expressed in precisely such a sum of > money and no other.' I agree with this, and it does not contradict my interpretation. I agree that when S = D, they cease to explain anything. I am not arguing that S and D explain anything. Rather, I am arguing that Marx assumed S = D in order to ignore their influences on market prices and explain prices of production, the center of gravity of market prices (as part of a general theory of the distribution of surplus-value). Paul, I think we agree, don't we, that in Marx's theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3, the total amount of surplus-value is taken as a predetermined magnitude, as determined in the Volume 1 theory of the production of surplus-value? Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EST