From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 10:25:31 EST
Quoting Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>: > > Fred said: > > I do not think I have "moved away from Mattick" at all. As I have said, > > I learned from Mattick the crucial methodological assumption of the > > determination of the total surplus-value prior to its distribution. > > > On this issue I think Chris A and I are arguing against you about the > reality of universals, capital's perverse tendency to conform to > Hegel's ontology. If I gave an average height for a population, there > is no such thing as the population in general and the average height. > But capital thingifies such abstractions: capital in general and > the average rate of profit are real things. > You seem to be holding on to the third of my four definitions > of capital in general. I agree with Chris about my fourth def. Then you are the one “moving away from Mattick”, not me. Rakesh, let’s approach the question of the meanings of the levels of abstraction of capital in general and competition indirectly, by way of the main questions addressed at these two levels of abstraction. 1. Do you agree that the main question of Volume 1 of Capital is the production of surplus-value, and that most of Volume 3 is about the distribution of surplus-value (Parts 2, and 4-7)? 2. Do you agree that Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3 takes as given the total amount of surplus-value to be distributed? To take the most important example: the general rate of profit is determined in Part 2 is the ratio of the total surplus-value to the total capital invested, with the total surplus-value taken as given? Or, in Part 5, the division of the total profit into enterprise profit and interest takes as given the total profit that is divided up? If not, then how do you think the general rate of profit is determined in Part 2 and how is the total profit divided up determined in Part 5? 3. Assuming agreement so far, do you agree that the total surplus-value that is taken as given in Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3 is determined by Marx’s theory of the production of surplus-value in Volume 1, supplemented by the theory of the circulation of capital in Volume 2 (which takes into account the turnover time of capital and thus determines the total surplus-value produced by the total capital in a year)? If not, then how do you think the total amount of surplus-value that is taken as given in Volume 3 is determined in Marx’s theory? 4. If we agree on all the above, these are the main issues that I am concerned with, and I would be very happy. 5. In addition, there is the issue of the meaning of the levels of abstraction of capital in general and competition. I argue that these levels of abstraction correspond to Marx’s theory of the production and distribution of surplus-value: the main question at the level of abstraction of capital in general is the production of surplus-value, and the main question at the level of abstraction of competition is the distribution of surplus-value. This is very clear in the Grundrisse and the Manuscript of 1861-63, in which Marx was still explicitly using the term “capital in general”. If you want to interpret a different meaning to the levels of abstraction of capital in general and competition, I would think this would be mistaken, but I am less concerned about this issue than the logic of Marx’s theory of the production and distribution of surplus-value, as outlined above (and discussed many times). 6. You say that the average rate of profit is a “real thing”. What exactly do you mean by that? My question is: how is the average rate of profit DETERMINED in Marx’s theory? My answer is: by the ratio of total surplus-value to the total capital invested, with the total surplus-value taken as given, as determined by the prior theory of the production of surplus-value. What is your answer – how do you think the average rate of profit is determined in Marx’s theory? Rakesh, thanks in advance for your reply, and I look forward to further discussion. Comradely, Fred ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 07 2005 - 00:00:01 EST