From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Oct 31 2005 - 18:14:23 EST
Andrew, that Marx deals with money first is part of the process of explanation which leads to the conclusion that 'commodities circulate money', that this special money commodity arises out of the social contradictions present in the process of accidental and extended commodity exchanges This resolves the immediate / imminent contradiction 'in' the commodity between use value and exchange value, displacing that contradiction to a new level. Cheers Paul Bullock. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A.B.Trigg" <A.B.Trigg@OPEN.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > Fred. > Sorry for the delay in replying (have been away for a few days). I was not so concerned in my comment with fixed capital as such. The possibility theory of crisis, alluded to in the quote I gave from Capital II, is more abstract than this, based on the separation of purchase from sale. This is not something for a more concrete volume of work post-Capital. It is Marx's theory of crisis at its most abstract. > > In answer to the question you ask me: my main concern is that you seem to be setting the pror level of total surplus value in production, stripping exchange out from the picture - there is a hint of Grossmann about this.Yet even at the most abstract level, at the start of Capital I, Marx starts with the circulation of money. Sorry if this is a misinterpretation.... > > In solidarity. > Andrew. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L on behalf of Fred Moseley > Sent: Sun 23/10/2005 14:20 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Cc: > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, A.B.Trigg wrote: > > > Fred. > => I agree that Marx was examining the conditions for a normal course. > > But what about this quote from Capital, volume 2, where Marx examines > > ‘conditions for the normal course of reproduction, whether simple or > > on an expanded scale, which turn into an equal number of conditions for > > an abnormal course, possibilities of crisis, since, on the basis of the > > spontaneous pattern of production, this balance is itself an accident’ > > (Marx 1978, p. 571). Isn't it part of Marx's approach in Capital that he > > undermines the basis for these normal conditions? > > > > > Andrew, thanks for your comment. I agree that fixed capital poses special > difficulties for balancing S and D, and that Marx considered this to be > important. However, in Marx's theory of prices of production in Vol. 3, > Marx continued to assume equal rates of profit across industries, and thus > assumed that S = D. > > I think Marx would have returned to the difficulties caused by fixed > capital in his theory of cycles at a lower level of abstraction. Marx > mentioned several times the effect of the reproduction cycle of fixed > capital on the "industrial cycle'. > > The point I am emphasizing is that, in Marx's theory of prices of > production in Vol. 3, Marx assumed that the general rate of profit is > determined prior to prices of production and is determined by the ratio of > the total surplus-value to the total capital invested, with the total > surplus-value determined by the prior theory of the production of > surplus-value at the level of abstractions of capital in general in Vol. > 1. > > Andrew, do you agree with this? > > Comradely, > Fred > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 00:00:05 EST