From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2006 - 10:39:09 EDT
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > > Fred wrote: > > > > In the past, you have said that you agreed with Shaikh's interpretation. > No, no I don't think the inputs were left in the form of values or > simple prices. > Marxists have misread Marx for over a century. I partially agree with > your argument. Perhaps there is more agreement between us than I thought. I hope so. > But if one accepts the traditional transformation problem, > Shaikh seems to vindicate Marx just fine. According to Shaikh's interpretation, the total surplus-value changes in the transformation of values into prices of production. Thus the total surplus-value is no longer determined solely by surplus labor. Do you think Marx would have been happy with this result? Or Lexis? Why are you happy with it. > Though I don't think your or Shaikh's > macro understanding of surplus value is macro enough in that it sees > total surplus > value as the sum of each firm's surplus value. And I would say that your understanding is less macro than mine, because the micro prices of production change the macro total surplus-value. Unless you have changed your mind about Shaikh's interpretation. > > > > > Rakesh, do you agree or disagree that this is Marx's theory of the total > > surplus-value? > > But why is this any more a theory of surplus value than I had offered? Because it identifies the determinants of the total surplus-value - the total surplus labor, which is the difference between the total current labor and the total necessary labor. You simply defined the total surplus-value as the difference between M' and M, which provides no explanation of the determinants of this difference. > > > > Rakesh, do you agree or disagree with this interpretation of Marx's theory > > of the general rate of profit and prices of production, which is > > consistent with, and indeed follows from, Lexis' emphasis on the prior > > determination of the total surplus-value? > > As usual, I have only quibbles with your interpretation since I learned Marx > as I was reading your interpretations. Again, I am happy that you have "only quibbles" with my interpretation. What are the "quibbles", besides "not macro enough". > But the changes from Shaikh's method are only nominal. I don't see > the important difference between you and Shaikh. Between you and Shaikh > and the American economics profession I do see quite a gulf, however. Of course, the difference between Shaikh and myself are much smaller than with the rest of the economics profession. But I still think, as already discussed, that Shaikh's conclusion that the total surplus-value changes as a result of the transformation, and is no longer determined solely by surplus labor, is an important difference. Shaikh's conclusion is not consistent with the total surplus-value determined prior to its distribution by the total social and remaining unchanged as a result of its distribution, and is thus not consistent with Lexis' interpretation of Marx, which you are currently emphasizing. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT