From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 23:38:45 EST
I don't think point 1 is correct, Fred. That's one thing that Michael Heinrich has right in his article on capital in general. He argues that total social capital depends on competition -- e.g. equalization of profit rates. So if analysis in Book III depends on competition and the analysis of Book I doesn't, then total social capital doesn't work for both. Total social capital is appropriate for the analysis of capital as money capital and real capital, a theme that runs through Part V of Book III. But this analysis presuppposes the equalization of rates of profit by means of competition. Perhaps the distinction gets obscured insofar as the circuit of money capital is taken as the framework for analysis. On the other hand, this is not to endorse Heinrich's critique of capital in general. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pen-L Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > Quoting Philip Dunn <hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK>: > > > Levels of abstraction? There are none. Suggest some. > > The two main levels of abstraction in Marx's theory are: > > 1. Capital in general - determination of the total surplus-value > produced by the total social capital. > > 2. Competition (or many capitals) - determination of the division of > the total surplus-value into individual parts. > > > Comradely, > Fred > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST