[OPE-L:3736] Re: Re: Re: surplus value and transferrred value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 19:49:40 EDT

[ show plain text ]

"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/28/00:


>*Wages, Prices, and Profit* does not explicitly discuss the circulation
>of capital because this is a lecture and not a formal presentation of his
>theory. But the lecture is all about PRICES - as indicated by the title!
>It is about the effect of an increase of wages on prices. Most of the
>lecture is a brief summary of Volume 1 of Capital. The summary of the
>basic theory of surplus-value is presented in the same way uses the same
>numerical example as Chapter 7 (surplus-value = 3 shillings). There is
>also a one-section summary of Volume 3 (Sec. 11: "The Different Parts
>into which Surplus-value is Decomposed"), which also discusses the
>division of surplus-value into profit, interest, and rent. All these
>variables are defined in terms of money and the total surplus-value is
>determined prior to its division (= 100 in Marx's numerical example).

>Ajit (and Paul Z.:) how do you explain the monetary nature of this entire

When organic compositions of capital are the same across industries -- as
Marx assumes in Vol. 1 -- relative values are reflected in relative
prices. He is fully permitted to use either labor time or pounds.

>What do you think the lecture is mainly about?

A popularization of many basic points of his theory, given 1865 strikes
and demands for wage increases by workers.

Paul Z.

P.S. My posting 3733 mistyped "contest" as "context". The correct
sentence, referring to the role of money, is "I don't contest that there
is a circuit involved in the realization of the production of surplus

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