From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Feb 03 2006 - 10:16:56 EST
Yet all these are surely just more concrete phenomena that are assumed away in the Transformation Problem. At the level of abstraction of the TP, your argument simply assumes what the TP allegedly shows is not the case, i.e. that the aggregate equalities hold. Let's put it another way: to anyone who accepts that the transformation of ch.9, vol. 3 is a valid level of abstraction to work at, then your argument is flatly contradictory, absent an argument as to why the prevalent interpretation of Marx's transformation is wrong. This brings us back to the initial probs you raised with the TP assumptions, and which Michael L. amplified. The problem for your argument is that you have to explain what you think the correct structure of abstraction and causation is, if you reject both Marx's and that in most of the literature. I found your argument difficult to fathom because you have an entirely different structure of causation and abstraction in mind to the one that I work with (I accept Marx's but not the prevalent interpretation in the literature.) -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Cockshott Sent: 03 February 2006 14:56 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value Andrew Brown wrote: >Paul, > >You wrote: "On the other hand I do not expect that, subject to total >price=total value, then total profit=total surplus value. I would expect >them to be related but only loosely." > >But the way I stated the argument was that, for any individual firm, >money costs (money measure of c+v) will be close to labour-time costs >(labour measure of c+v). The logic of this argument is that total money >costs across the economy must be very close indeed to their labour time >measure. > >You also accept that total prices = total values. > >Total profit = total prices (money measure of total s+c+v) minus total >costs (money measure of total c+v). Both terms of the RHS are also equal >to their labour time measures so surplus value must equal total profit. > > The problem lies in the difference between formal and real appropriation of the surplus. Money profit is an accounting entry and is not equivalent to real surplus appropriation unless quite complex additional assumptions are made - like there being no aggregate workers savings or borrowing, a trade balance etc. Real surplus appropriation is the amount of labour required to produce the commodities actually appropriated by the capitalist class as new means of production or as personal consumption. Money profit and real appropriation are not necessarily identical because of the existence of money, and the possibility of any circuit c-m-c being delayed for a longer or shorter period in the m phase. >So I cannot have stated the argument you are making exactly correctly. >Presumably the problem lies in the treatment of 'v'. Let me know. > >Many thanks >Andy > > -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 04 2006 - 00:00:01 EST