In [OPE-L:5308] Eduardo quotes Marx as follows:
> I think that the following analysis of Marx is important for this
> discussion. In TSV (part III, Progress Publisher, p. 344-45) he argues
> that:
> "Let us [now] consider the manufacturer. Let us assume that he has laid out
> $100 in cotton twist and made a profit of $20. The product therefore
> amounts to $120. It is assumed that $80 out of the outlay of $100 has been
> paid for cotton. If the price of cotton falls by half, he will now need to
> spend only $40 on the cotton and $20 for the rest, that is $60 in all
> (instead of $100) and the profit will be $20 as previously, the total
> product will amount to $80 (if he does not increase the scale of his
> production). $40 THUS REMAINS IN HIS POCKET. HE CAN EITHER SPEND IT OR
> INVEST IT AS ADDITIONAL CAPITAL....
> "Thus it is not the fact that the farmer replaces HIS SEED CORN IN KIND
> which is the key, for the manufacturer buys his cotton and does not replace
> it out of his own product. What this phenomenon amounts to is this:
> RELEASE OF A PORTION OF THE CAPITAL PREVIOUSLY TIED UP IN CONSTANT CAPITAL,
> OR THE CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF THE CAPITAL INTO REVENUE. If exactly the
> same amount of capital is laid out in the reproduction process as
> previously, then it is the same as if additional capital had been employed
> on the old scale of production.)
If we read the rest of that paragraph we see what Marx is getting at:
"This is therefore a kind of accumulation which arises from the increased
productivity of those branches of industry which supply the productive
ingredients of capital. However, SUCH A FALL IN THE [PRICE OF] RAW
MATERIALS, IF DUE TO THE SEASONS, IS COUNTERACTED BY UNFAVORABLE SEASONS,
IN WHICH THE PRICES OF RAW MATERIALS RISE. The capital released in this
way in one or several seasons is, therefore, to a certain extent, reserve
capital for the other seasons. For instance, the manufacturer whose [fixed
capital] turns over once every twelve years, must arrange things in such a
way that he can continue to produce -- at least *on the same scale*
throughout the twelve years. One has therefore to take into account that
the *prices* [of the raw materials] he has to *replace* FLUCTUATE AND EVEN
THEMSELVES OUT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT OVER A LONG PERIOD OF YEARS" (Ibid,
capitalization added for emphasis).
[Three paragraphs later Marx explains that: "The phenomenon of the
conversion of capital into revenue should be noted, because it creates the
*illusion* that the amount of profit grows (or in the opposite case
decreases) independently of the amount of surplus-value. We have seen
that, under certain circumstances, a piece of rent can be explained by
this phenomenon" (Ibid, pp. 345-6). Then he writes: "In the way mentioned
above (that is, if the remaining 20 quarters worth $20 {$ sign
substituted for pound sign, JL} are not used immediately to extend the
scale of production, i.e. if they are not accumulated, a money capital of
$20 is set free. This is an example of how *redundant money capital* can
be extracted from the reproduction process although the aggregate value
of commodities remains the same, namely, by a portion of the capital
which existed previously in the form of fixed (constant) capital being
converted into money capital" (Ibid, p. 346)].
Now, my question for you is (especially since you claim in response to
Paul C that: "I do not think that the introduction of credit relations
helps to understand the issue we are discussing" contrary to what Marx
wrote when he introduced the subject of "release and tying-up of capital"
in VIII, p. 205): of what relevance is the above, especially since it
concerns *SEASONAL VARIATIONS* in the prices of raw materials, to the
issue of understanding Marx's concept of revenue in the *transformation of
value into prices of production*?
Nonetheless, I would like to see a further discussion of the "release and
tying-up of capital" even though (or perhaps because) it does not relate
directly to the transformation.
In solidarity, Jerry