From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 23:35:45 EST
Hi Fred, Thanks for taking the time to explain your views which in turn have helped me understand Capital as I indicated in my last message. As you know from previous discussion, I think the magnitude of surplus value is discussed throughout Capital, not just in the first volume. In vol 3 Marx deals with economies in the use of constant capital; this affects the magnitude of surplus value, no? We also find that turnover time affects the mass of surplus value produced per annum. Also surplus value can decrease in volume 3 with the introduction of ground rent. Increasing ground rent payments can raise the price of wage goods and thus decrease the rate of exploitation and the magnitude of surplus value. All these factors have to be considered as determinants of the mass of surplus value produced. So the production of the mass of surplus value being depends on a lot of factors, some only discussed in the volumes following the first. Moreover, Marx never considers in detail the effects of rising physical productivity as measured in ever greater physical quantities of use values on the production of surplus value. These effects are suggested in many places but never fully developed. In my opinion--and here I was convinced by Paul Cockshott long ago-- this is what gives the Sraffian model focused as it is on physical quantities a real strength over much value centric analysis to which I am of course sympathetic. On this list Paul Burkett has reminded us of how serious a blindness to use value (in an objective classical sense) is in the face of grave ecological problems. And of course Steve Keen has his own version of this argument. All this said, I generally agree with what you are saying, and again as my last post to you showed, I take as very insightful and helpful your attempt to differentiate levels of abstraction. What do I mean by seeming mental abstractions such as capital in general and the average rate of profit being real things? I mean that capital in general has its own real attributes and its own fate which is independent of the lives of the individual capitals of which it is composed. But this is very murky, and I'll need time to think about it. Which will include time to reread Chris Arthur's work. Comradely, Rakesh >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 : Sun Nov 13 2005 - 00:00:02 EST