In OPE-L: 5262 Jerry suggested that "perhaps we can get Eduardo to
discuss
that subject [revaluation and devaluation; Release and Tying-up of
Capital] on this list." Let me, fist of all, to thank Jerry for bringing me
to
this debate.
The issue which is under discussion is, as presented by Fred in OPE-L:
4762, the following one:
1) "since revenue is defined as ALL OR PART of this specific surplus-value,
revenue CANNOT BE GREATER than this specific surplus-value. A part cannot
be greater than the whole."
2) "Andrew has replied in (4700) that, even if revenue id defined as a
PART of surplus-value (which now Andrew says he does not necessarily agree
with; see more on this point below), REVENUE CAN BE GREATER THAN
SURPLUS-VALUE."
3) Further, Fred also states that "Now I really don't understand this,
either from a point o view of formal logic or from the point of view of
Marx's theory. If one variable is defined as (all or) PART of another
variable, how can the first variable be GREATER than the second
variable?"
I fully agree with Fred that "surplus-value is defined as the
INTRA-PERIOD difference between the price of the commodities produced in
the given period and the cost of producing these commodities" and also that
"REVENUE is defined as a part of this specific intra-period [i.e.,
surplus-value].
BUT FROM THIS IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT REVENUE CANNOT BE GREATER THAN
SURPLUS- VALUE, as Fred maintains. In my opinion, Andrew is quite right:
REVENUE CAN BE GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT OF SURPLUS-VALUE.
This can occur as a consequence of the release of capital and its
conversion into revenue. In other words, capital released in period t can
be spent as revenue in period t+1, and consequently capitalist's revenue
in period t+1 will be GREATER than the surplus-value produced in that same
period. This precisely my argument in the paper I presented at the EEA-97.
By
using Steedman's example, which was constructed to show that Marx's
theory of value is logically inconsistent, I demonstrated that, over time,
there
occur a release of constant capital which must (according to the
hypothesis of the example) be converted into revenue and thereby, until
equilibrium
is reached, we have that REVENUE SURPLUS-VALUE at each period of
production. For example, at the first period we have that SURPLUS-VALUE =
$60 (which is wholly spent as revenue) whereas the TOTAL REVENUE = $66.545
and the TOTAL CAPITAL RELEASED = $6.545. Moreover, I also demonstrated that
the
so-called inconsistency of the Marx's theory is an "illusion" created by
the
neglect of the phenomena of release and tying-up of capital. When these
phenomena are taken into consideration, Marx's theory is logically
consistent.
Finally, let indicate that Marx deals with this subject (amongst others
places) in the Theories of Surplus-Value, Part II, Chapter XVI, section
3c.I think that Marx discussion in this section is very interesting, so let
me quote some parts of his discussion:
"In this last class it cannot be said that the rent swallows up the
profit. There is no rent and no profit because there is no surplus-value.
Wages
swallows up the surplus-value and therefore the profit ...In the other
four classes [of agricultural capital] the position is prima facie by no
means
clear. IF THERE IS NO SURPLUS-VALUE, HOW CAN RENT EXIST? (p. 451) ... The
riddle is solved in the following manner: (p. 451) ... Thus it becomes
evident that differential rent ... in its material form as rent in kind,
surplus-product ... is made up of two elements and due to two
transformations. [Firstly:] the surplus product which represents the
surplus-labour of the workers or the surplus-value, and therefore falls
to the landlord instead of the capitalist. Secondly: apart of the product
which previously - when the product of the better type of land or mine
was being sold at its own value - was nesded to replace the value of the
constant capital is now, when the esch portion of the product poseesses a
higher market-value, free and appears in the form of surplus product,
thus falling to the landlord instead of the capitalist" (p. 452).
Eduardo