From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 12:19:48 EST
Rakesh, thanks for your latest message and sorry for my delayed response. I agree that many factors affect the total amount of surplus-value produced in a year: most directly wages, the length of the working day, the number of workers employed, and the turnover rate of capital; and also indirectly all the other factors that affect these direct determinants of the total surplus-value. However, my point is that, in Marx’s theory of the distribution of surplus- value in Volume 3, Marx holds all these determinants of surplus-value constant and takes the total surplus-value produced as given, in order to analyze how the given total surplus-value is divided into individual parts – first into equal rates of profit across industries, and then the further division of the total surplus-value into commercial profit, interest, and rent. I have written several papers (that you know about) that present lots of textual evidence to support this interpretation. In response to the specific factors that you mention: (1) Economies in the use of constant capital do not affect the total amount of surplus-value; instead, these economies affect the stock of constant capital, the denominator in the rate of profit, and thus affect the rate of profit. But the amount of surplus-value is independent of constant capital, as Marx emphasized many times. (2) Turnover times do affect the total amount of surplus-value produced per year; I said this in my last post. Marx analyzed turnover times in Volume 2 of Capital, at the level of abstraction of capital in general, prior to the level of abstraction of competition in Volume 3. (3) Yes, if wages rise, then surplus-value is reduced. But for a given period, the amount of wages (or variable capital) is taken as given, which determines (in part) the total amount of surplus-value produced, which in turn is taken as given in the Volume 3 theory of the division of this total surplus- value into individual parts. Rakesh, a simple quantitative question: how do you think Marx determined the general rate of profit in Part 2 of Volume 3? Did he not determine it as the total surplus-value divided by the total capital invested, with the total surplus-value taken as given, as determined by the prior theory of the production of surplus-value in Volume 1 (and the circulation of capital in Volume 2)? Please answer this question. I think it would help to clarify whether or not we have a significant disagreement here. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred Quoting Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------- 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