Jerry:
> That is a problem with some interpretations. A problem with some other
> interpretations is when use-value is vacated from the analysis.
Alejandro:
For example?
Jerry:
> Use-value is _also_ decisive for capitalists. Consider
> the M - C - M circuit. Capitalists advance money-
> capital for the purchase of labour-power
> and elements of constant capital. What is decisive for the capitalist in
> the _production process_ is precisely the use-value of these commodities.
> Even if the capitalist purchased these commodities at their value, there
> can be a [unanticipated] reduction in the use-value of these components of
> capital which can then lead to a reduction in value and the value-form.
Alejandro:
I agree. I am not discussing this, but the unilateral
calculation of the rate of profit on the exclusive basis of
"use-value" relations, more specifically, on the exclusive
basis of the evolution of labor productivity.
Jerry:
> If what you are saying is that capitalism can go into crisis when there
> is a reduction in value-creation and profit even when there is an
> increase in "material wealth" measured by an increase in the quantity of
> commodities produced, then I agree that this is not an "obscure" point in
> Marxs presentation.
Alejandro:
OK, that was I wanted to say. Sorry for the "obscurity".
Alejandro:
> Are you agree with a calculation of profit rate
> which takes unilaterally into account the
> increasing material wealth? What would be the
> advantage of this in order to formalize Marxs
> propositions concerning the dynamic to profit rate?
Jerry:
> I dont understand these questions.
Alejandro again:
Sorry. My questions are very cryptic.
Let us take Tugan-Baranowsky "Theoretische Grundlagen des
Marxismus" [1905], Ch.VII, part III. There, Tugan shows an
example in which the increasing productivity of labor (i.e.
an increasing material wealth) implies a rising rate of
profit.
Tugan presents this as a **refutation** of Marx's
falling rate of profit, presented in Capital III, part 3.
Tugan's calculation only takes into account the dynamic of
the material wealth, neglecting the value realm.
So my questions could be reformulated as:
Are you agree with the method to calculate the rate of
profit proposed by Tugan?
What would be the advantage to consider this PARTICULAR
INTERPRETATION of Marx as a correct representation of his
theory, if it cannot reproduce an important Marx's
statement?
Alejandro Ramos M.
31.1.97
P.S. I find Tugan's book an incredible source of the main
"orthodox" interpretations of Marx. For example:
The Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Seton-Steedman version of the
transformation is already in Tugan.
The Okishio version of the dynamic of the rate of profit is
already (as I just said) in Tugan. Okishio puts Tugan's
interpretation in terms of matrix algebra.
Sometimes, I think that the contribution of academic Marxism
--at least in these two important debates-- has been to
"formalize" Tugan's examples. So, it seems that, in the
field of "orthodoxy", we cannot find any CONCEPTUAL
development since 1905!!
Although it has not been translated into English,
(incredibly) there is a Spanish version of this Tugan's
book, edited in 1915. I have a copy of the latter. If
anyone on OPE-L wants a copy, I can send it (I only ask for
the mail and coping costs, which could be "paid" whith
another photocopies!!).