Eduardo wrote in [OPE-L:5291]:
> 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, [...]
I agree that this section is very interesting -- in fact, I think we
discussed it somewhat in a thread called "negative surplus value" from
December (96) - January (97).
Since you highlighted a few parts of that section, let me highlight a few
others:
(1) [In Table E] "surplus-value is non-existent, hence there is profit
nor rent" (Progress ed., p. 450).
(2) *But* "The *non-existence* of surplus value must therefore be sheer
illusion" (Ibid, p. 451).
(3) In the quotes that Eduardo selected about how "the riddle is solved"
and "the two *transformations*" it is clear that the "riddle" concerns
*differential rent* and the division of the surplus-product between
*capitalists and landlords* (see p. 452). Thus the two transformations
concern "*rent in kind* in so far as it is differential rent" (p. 452):
(i) "the transformation of the surplus-produce into rent, and not into
profit; and (ii) ""the transformation of a *portion* of the product which
was previously allocated for the replacement of the value of the constant
capital into surplus-product and thus into rent" (pp. 452-53).
(4) Regarding the possible relevance or irrelevance of the above to the
topics under discussion, i.e. the transformation of value into PoP and the
LTGRPD, note the following:
"when speaking of the law of the *falling rate of profit* in the
course of the development of capitalist production, we mean by
profit, the total sum of surplus-value in the first place by
industrial capitalist [IRRESPECTIVE OF] HOW HE MAY HAVE TO
SHARE THIS LATER WITH THE MONEY-LENDING CAPITALIST (IN THE FORM
OF INTEREST) AND THE LANDLORD (IN THE FORM OF RENT). Thus here
the rate of profit is equal to surplus-value divided by the
capital outlay. The rate of profit in this sense may fall,
although, for instance, the industrial profit rises
proportionately to interest or vice versa, or although rent
rises proportionately to industrial profit or vice versa. If P
is the profit, P' the industrial profit, I interest and R rent,
then P = P' + I + R. And it is clear, that whatever the
absolute magnitude of P - P', I, R can increase or decrease
as compared with one another, independently of the magnitude of
P or the rise and fall of P. The reciprocal rise of P', I and R
ONLY REPRESENTS AN ALTERED DISTRIBUTION OF P AMONG DIFFERENT
PERSONS. A FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH
THE DISTRIBUTION OF P DEPENDS BUT WHICH DOES NOT COINCIDE WITH
A RISE OR FALL OF P ITSELF, DOES NOT BELONG HERE, BUT INTO A
CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPETITION BETWEEN CAPITALS. That,
however, R can rise to a level higher than that of P, if it were
only divided into P' and I, is therefore -- as has already been
explained -- due to an *illusion* which arises from the fact
that a part of the product whose value is rising, becomes free
and is converted into rent instead of being reconverted into
constant capital" (Ibid, pp. 453-54, capitalization added for
emphasis).
Especially interesting to note is his reference to how the subject of
competition between capitals "does not belong here". I believe Marx makes
that same point when he introduces the subject of "Revaluation and
Devaluation of Capital: Release and Tying-Up of Capital" in Volume III
(see 1st paragraph, Ch. 6, Section 2 [Penguin ed., p. 205]).
In solidarity, Jerry