Andrew and I seem to be using the word "define" in two different ways.
Andrew is "defining" revenue as surplus-value that is spent on consumer
goods rather than accumulated, a definition with which I have no quarrel.
But what I am emphasizing is the DETERMINATION of the magnitude of revenue.
The thrice quoted passage (once incorrectly) from K-M's p. 42 is about the
determination of the magnitude of revenue: that reveune "EQUALS" the
difference between the price of goods produced in the current period (e.g.
period ONE) and the capital advanced in the next period, i.e. that revenue
is DETERMINED as this inter-period difference.
THIS IS THE POINT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO COUNTERPART IN MARX'S THEORY.
"Revenue" is NEVER determined in this way by Marx. Revenue is always
determined as a PART OF SURPLUS-VALUE, where surplus-value is always
determined as the intra-period difference between the price and the costs of
goods produced in the CURRENT period. If all this surplus-value is
consumed, then revenue = surplus-value. If only a part of this
surplus-value is consumed, then revenue < surplus-value. Revenue is always
a part of this intra-period surplus-value. Revenue is never determined as
the inter-period difference that K-M utilize. This is the point I am trying
to emphasize - that K-M's revenue is DETERMINED differently from Marx's
surplus-value and that Marx's revenue is never determined as K-M determine
it, and indeed that there is no concept in Marx's theory that is determined
as K-M's revenue is determined. This is a completely new and different
concept.
To remind ourselves, the original issue between Andrew and me is K-M's
interpretation of Marx's theory of prices of production. K-M present their
interpretation in terms of a 2-dept. reproduction scheme over two or more
periods. K-M argue in effect that, ONCE PRICES OF PRODUCTION ARE
DETERMINED, MARX'S ANALYSIS OF REPRODUCTION CHANGES IN FUNDAMENTAL WAYS.
The "balance" conditions become inter-period conditions, rather than
inter-period conditions (for dept 1 as well as dept 2), and surplus-value in
the balance condition for dept 2 is replaced by this new and different
concept of "revenue", which is itself an inter-period difference. This is
how the concept of "revenue" entered in our discussion. Their
interpretation of the transformation problem depends crucially on their
interpretation of these fundamental changes in Marx's analysis of
reproduction.
However, there is no hint or suggestion (that I know of ) in all of Marx's
drafts of Part 3 of Volume 2 that the determination of prices of production
would change the fundamental nature of the "balance" conditions in his
analysis of reproduction (either that they would become inter-period
conditions or that the inter-period difference reveune would replace the
intra-period difference surplus-value in the balance condition for dept. 2).
And it should be noted that all the several drafts of Part 3 of Volume 2
were written chronologically AFTER Marx's theory of prices of production in
Part 2 of Volume 3 (which was written in 1864). Marx continued to work on
Volume 2 throughout the 1870s (this was just about his only work on
Capital). Therefore one would expect at least some passing references by
Marx to the effect that, once prices of production are detemined, the
analysis of reproduction would change in these fundamental ways. But there
are no such references.
Did Marx not realize this very important point, that the determination of
prices of production would change the analysis of reproduction in these
fundamental ways? Or did Marx simply fail to write down this important
point? I find both of these possibilities hard to believe, given Marx's
thoroughness and his exploratory method of investigation, writing down
almost everything he was thinking and often following digressions inspired
by the moment.
Ah, but maybe there are references to these fundamental changes in the
analysis of reproduction in the Volume 2 manuscripts THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN
PUBLISHED (there are lots of them, most of them short). Andrew, I will make
you a bet: that there are no such hints or suggestions, let alone a
discussion, of these fundamental changes in the analysis of reproduction in
the remaining unpublished Volume 2 manuscripts. If there are, I will accept
your interpretation. If not, you accept mine. This strikes me as a fairly
definitive "empirical test". My interpretation predicts that there will be
no such references and your interpretation predicts that there will be.
Eventually (and I think within the next few years) we should be able to
determine which prediction is correct. I will accept just one clear,
explicit statement of either one of these fudamental changes. This is mostly
in jest, because I of course want to continue discussing in the meantime.
But eventually, some important new evidence will be available on this
question.
And my main point, to conclude, is that the complete lack of any textual
evidence of these fundamental changes in the analysis of reproduction is
strong evidence against K-M's interpretation of reproduction, and hence
against their interpretation of the transformation problem.
Comradely,
Fred