A reply to Rieu's ope-l 3897, which I very much appreciated. I think it has
advanced the discussion significantly.
Rieu: "My argument above quoted was to show that Marx's passage quoted by
Andrew can be explained with logical consistency (even!) in the simultaneist
interpretation. Namely, the falling of the value of yarn(20C-->6C) is
compatible with the decrease of surplus value(5S-->3.6S) because the value of
cotton itself diminishes(40-->12)."
Thanks for the clarification; now I understand your point. But this fails to
explain Marx's actual contention, namely that "IT IS NOT TRUE CONVERSELY THAT
ANY SURPLUS PRODUCT IN THE SENSE OF A MERE INCREASE IN
THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCT REPRESENTS A SURPLUS-VALUE." Surplus-value in
your example remains positive.
Rieu: "In the simultaneist interpretation, positivity of surplus product is
necessary and sufficient condition for
positive surplus value."
Exactly.
Rieu: "This is well known as Morishima (or Okishio)'s so-called 'Fundamental
Marxian Theorem'."
Exactly.
Rieu: "Therefore, NO SIMULTANEIST NEED TO EXPLAIN 'how a surplus product may
not represent a surplus value'."
Exactly. And no simultaneist can, either. You have your theory and Marx had
his. They are different, that's all. And that's all I've ever said. I don't
claim, and I've never claimed, that Marx was "right" and simultaneism is
"wrong." I've never said that simultaneists can't be "Marxists." All I want
simultaneists to do is to renounce claims that your value theory is Marx's, or
that it represents an adequate interpretation of his own value theory.
Given that you're using the same *words* as Marx to refer to different
*concepts*, and given that he came first, it would help lessen confusion
considerably if simultaneists changed their terminology. Many already have.
Again, I think Rieu is *absolutely* right when he says that no simultaneist
needs to explain how it is not true that any surplus product (in the
simultaneist sense) represents a surplus-value (in the simultaneist sense).
Simultaneists are entitled to their own theory. But the issues I raised
originally had to do with the INTERPRETATION of MARX's value theory and, if
one is to have an adequate interpretation, one DOES need to explain how, in
Marx's own theory, it is not true that any surplus product (in the
simultaneist sense) represents a surplus-value (in Marx's sense). Why?
Because, in the passage in dispute, he definitely said it wasn't true, and an
adequate interpretation must be able to make sense of what he said.
An example may help to clarify the difference between interpretation and
theory. The theory that the earth goes around the sun is right. The theory
that the sun goes around the earth is wrong. Yet an interpretation of
Ptolemy's theory which holds that he maintained that the sun goes around the
earth is right, whereas an interpretation which holds that he maintained that
the earth goes around the sun is wrong.
Rieu: "To my knowledge, "ein Minus von Wert" cannot be translated into "minus
quantity of value".
I thank Rieu for digging out the German. "Subtraction from value" or
"deduction from value" also seem better to me, but my German is also very
limited. But this doesn't change the crucial point, which is that, in MARX's
theory, "it is not true that any surplus product in the sense of a mere
increase in the quantity of the product represents a surplus-value," i.e., "a
surplus product may not represent a surplus value."
Rieu: "I think, what the passage tried to say is, not more than that the
quantitative change is not proportional to the change of value magnitude."
I've already dealt with this, most recently in a post that I'm sending
together with this. In any case, I know that this is what you think, but can
you *substantiate* this interpretation by a detailed reading of the actual
text? I think not.
Happy new year.
Andrew Kliman