From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 09:29:32 EDT
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu wrote: > Re Fred's [7805]: > > > Jerry, the magnitude of s that is taken as given in Volume 3 has > > already been determined in Volume 1. It does not have to be > > determined later; it has already been determined, by the quantity > of surplus labor. Do you see what I mean? > > Fred, the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume > One was made under the *assumption* that the entire surplus-value > created in production would be actualized in exchange. Therefore > the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume Three has not been determined > except for the *special case* where the entire surplus-value is actualized. In other words, the magnitude of s in Volume 3 will equal the magnitude that is given in Volume One *if any only if* the reality corresponds to this restrictive assumption. But, one would think that during the contractionary phase of the trade cycle this assumption will _not_ hold as there are unsold inventories of commodities. Thus, if we are going to talk about the magnitude of surplus-value during periods of crisis then this restrictive assumption must be dropped. Do you see what I mean? Yes, I think I do, and I think I mostly agree. Thanks for the clarification. My point has been that the theory of the distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3 takes the total surplus-value as given, and that this total surplus-value that is taken is given in Volume 3 has been determined by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1. This total surplus-value is not affected by the distribution of surplus-value, i.e. by the equalization of profit rates across industries and the further division of this total surplus-value into interest, rent, etc. Both Volume 1 and Volume 3 are at a high level of abstraction and assume that there is no realization problem. The more concrete analysis of crises and realization problems would be at a lower level of abstraction, beyond the three volumes of Capital. Do you agree or disagree? Thanks again. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT