I am getting back into it, and I would like to go back to my debate with
Andrew over the determination of constant capital, and in particular to
Andrews's interpretation of Marx's discussion of Torrens in TSV.III (77-79),
which Andrew has emphasized in recent posts. Others may have little or no
further interest in this question at this time, but I am still working on it
(and probably Andrew too), so I thought I would at least post my latest
thoughts for the record and perhaps for further discussion.
In this subsection from TSV, Marx quoted a passage from Torrens in which the
latter presented a simple example of production entirely in physical terms
in which 100 quarters of corn are used to produce 120 quarters of corn.
Torrens argued that in this case the profit would be 20 quarters of corn.
Marx argued that Torrens' purely physical example has "nothing to do with
profit," because profit has to do with exchange-value, and exchange-values
are not determined by use-value.
In order to illustrate this independence of exchange-value from use-value,
Marx commented:
As far as exchange-value is concerned, there is no need to explain further
that the value of 90 quarters of corn can be equal to (or greater than) the
value of 100 quarters, that the value of 100 quarters can be greater than
that of 120 quarters, and that of 120 quarters greater than that of 500.
Thus, on the basis of one example which has NOTHING to do with profit,
with the surplus in the VALUE of the product over the VALUE of the
capital outlay, Torrens draws conclusions about profit. (p. 79;
Marx's emphasis)
Andrew places great emphasis on the first sentence above. He interprets
this sentence as saying that the value of 120 quarters of corn as OUTPUT
might be
less than the value of 100 quarters of corn as INPUT and thus that the rate
of profit might be negative, in spite of a positive physical surplus. This
is possible, Andrew argues, only if the value of the inputs is not
determined simultaneously with the value of the output. Therefore, Andrew
interprets this passage as important evidence that, for Marx, the value of
the constant capital is not determined simultaneously with the value of the
output, but is instead determined at the beginning of the current production
period.
I have four comments about this passage and Andrew's interpretation.
1. In the first sentence, Marx did not explicitly state anything in this
passage about the rate of profit. He did not calculate an alternative rate
of profit and he did not say that the rate of profit would be negative.
Indeed, in the second sentence, Marx defined profit as the SURPLUS of the
value of the product over the value of the capital outlay, which implies a
positive rate of profit.
2. Whether or not there is a rate of profit implicit in what Marx said
depends on whether or not the quantities of corn mentioned were intended to
be quantities of INPUTS and OUTPUTS of the same production process.
However, Marx did not explicitly state this intended meaning. Another
interpretation is that Marx was simply comparing different quantities of
output to illustrate the general independence of exchange-value from
use-value, as suggested above.
3. Marx did not say anything explicitly about the determination of constant
capital in this passage or anywhere else in this subsection.
Therefore, Andrew is reading quite a bit into Marx's words to conclude that
this passage states that the rate of profit will be negative because
constant capital is determined at the beginning of the period rather than at
the end of the period.
4. Finally, and most importantly, NO MATTER HOW CONSTANT CAPITAL IS
DETERMINED, I don't see how it is possible, on the basis of Marx's theory of
value, that the value of the 120 quarters of corn as output can be less than
the value of the 100 quarters of corn as input. In the subsection from
which this passage comes, Marx explicitly stated that the 100 quarters of
corn are considered as SEED (i.e. as means of production). Marx stated
earlier in the subsection:
In addition to the 100 quarters of corn - the SEEDS - various other
chemical ingredents supplied by the manure, salts contained in the soil,
water, air, light, are all involved in the process which transforms the 100
quarters of corn into 120. (p. 78; emphasis added)
Therefore, in Marx's theory, the value of the 100 quarters of corn as seed
would be considered as constant capital.
Now, as I understand it, Marx's theory assumes that the value of output
consists of two components: the value transferred from the means of
production (the constant capital) and the new-value produced by current
labor; i.e. V = C + N. This equation states that, as long as N > 0 (i.e.
living labor is expended),
P cannot be < C. THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT DEPEND IN ANY WAY ON THE PRECISE
WAY IN WHICH C IS DETERMINED - whether at the beginning of the current
period or at the end - which has been the main disagreement between Andrew
and me. However C is determined, P cannot be < C, if N > 0.
Therefore, I conclude that it is very unlikely Marx was saying in this
passage that the value of the output can be less than the value of the
constant capital because this conflicts so clearly with his theory of value.
And if he was saying that in this passage, it was a momentary lapse of no
great importance.
Instead, as suggested above, I think that Marx was simply saying in this
passage and in the surrounding subsection that Torrens' example which is in
purely physical terms has "nothing to do with profit," because profit has to
do with exchange-value, and exchange-values are not determined by use-value.
Fred