[OPE-L:3732] Re: Re: definition of constant capital

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Aug 28 2000 - 11:41:27 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Hi Paul,

Did you miss my earlier post in which I acknowledged that "you are
right" that I had misquoted the letter of Marx's definition of constant
capital on p. 317? I argued that when Marx said "that part of CAPITAL
that is turned into means of production," he meant "that part of the
initial money-capital that is turned into means of production". Because
capital had already been defined as "money that becomes more money" and
because the "capital that is turned into [or exchanged for] means of
production" is indeed money-capital? What else would it be? Plus, in
this post I was responding to Rakesh and was in part referring to his
language and his acceptance of my point that in Volume 1 constant capital
is defined, as he put it, as the "money laid out in means of production."

I will send another copy of this post to you separately. I lost track of
the OPEL number of this first post. Please also note that my second post
begins "this is a FURTHER brief reply ..."

Now I hope you will consider p. 320 (and the rest of Chapter 9), in which
constant capital is clearly and explicitly discussed in terms of money?

More generally, if you don't think Volume 1 is mainly about money and
prices (and especially dM), what do you think is the main subject of
Volume 1? What are the main variables determined? What are the equations
of determination?


P.S. Please see my last post to Ajit for a response to your earlier
question about Wages, Prices, and Profit.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:

> Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 09:23:46
> From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:3727] Re: definition of constant capital
> Fred,
> What are you doing?
> I noted that you supposedly quoted -- yes, quoted! -- Marx, p. 317,
> Fowkes edition, in your posting on 08/16/00:
> >>In this chapter, Marx did indeed define constant capital as the "money
> >>laid out for means of production." (p. 317).
> I pointed out to you in terms I thought could not be avoided [#3683]:
> >p. 317 has no such phrase in my Fowkes edition and, in fact, the word
> >"money" does not even appear on that page anywhere (I checked twice -- am
> >I blind?).
> >The page rather says "I call [that part of capital which is turned into
> >means of production] the constant part of capital, or more briefly,
> >constant capital."
> >See provide the exact edition of Marx you are using, Fred, if not the
> >Vintage/Random House 1977.
> Rather than either admit your erroneous quotation, supposedly from p.
> 317, or else show my blindness in reading text, you jump me four [sic --
> should be three] pages later in Marx in your reply [#3699].
> Your error is therefore now doubled --
> 1. not admitting to use of a false quotation of Marx to defend your position,
> 2. not staying on the page you cite which is where Marx defines constant capital.
> Fred, I'm not going to discuss p. 320 until we resolve my posting RE: p. 317.
> Disconcertedly, Paul
> ***********************************************************************
> ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
> "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/21/00:
> >This is a brief further response to Paul Z's (3683) about the definition
> >of constant capital in Chapter 8 of Volume 1. Paul, please look four
> >pages after the definition we discussed, which is the first page of
> >Chapter 9 (p. 320) (and indeed please look again at the whole Chapter 9).
> >Here Marx said:
> >"The capital C is made up of two components, one the sum of the MONEY c
> >laid out on means of production, and the other the sum of MONEY v
> >expended on labor-power; c represents the portion of value which has been
> >turned into constant capital, v that turned into variable capital. At
> >the beginning C = c + v: for example, if 500 is the capital advanced,
> >its component many be suchthat the 500 = 410 constant + 90 variable.
> >When the process of production is finished, we get a commodity whose
> >VALUE = (c + v) + s, where s is the surplus-value; or taking our former
> >figures, the value of this commodity is (410 constant + 90 variable) +
> >90 surplus. The original capital has now changed from 500 to 590. The
> >difference is s, or a surplus-value of 90. (emphasis added)
> >I think it is clear that Marx is defining constant capital and variable
> >capital (and surplus-value) in terms of money. What do you think?
> >Thanks again.
> >Comradely,
> >Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT