Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2007 - 06:25:10 EST 

--- Pen-L Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote:

The theory of the distribution of
> surplus-value at the level of
> abstraction of competition is based on the premise
> that the total
> surplus-value is taken as given, as already
> determined by the prior
> theory of the production of surplus-value, at the
> level of abstraction
> of capital in general.  Thus there is a clear
> logical progression in
> Marx’s theory from the determination of the total
> surplus-value at the
> level of abstraction of capital in general to the
> determination of the
> individual parts at the level of abstraction of
> competition.  To take
> the most important example, in the theory of the
> general rate of profit
> and average profit and prices of production, the
> total surplus-value is
> taken as given, as already determined.
__________________________
But Fred, who has denied that the surplus value (total
or individual) is not taken as given or rather already
determined in the process of production? The question
is: on what basis one could claim that this *given*
total surplus value is *equal* to the total profits of
the system. There is no methodological point involved
here (Marx's or anybody else's), surplus value, by
definition, can only be determined in the process of
production and therefore, not at the level of the
determination of prices of production, which involves
rate of profits and not surplus value. Cheers, ajit
sinha




____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT