[OPE-L:4456] Re: Re: Re: what is Volume 1 about?

From: riccardo bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 06:03:49 EST

At 23:04 +0100 3-11-2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, riccardo bellofiore wrote:
>> At 6:24 +0100 3-11-2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
>> >I would like to raise again the issue of what Volume 1 is about - whether
>> >labor-values only or money-quantities determined by labor-values - in
>> >response to some very interesting comments by Andrew K. in recent posts
>> >(thanks, Andrew).
>> Neither one or the other. I would guess it is on the process of
>> *production* of capital.
>> r.b.
>Hi Riccardo,
>Two quick questions of clarification of your very cryptic response:
>1.  What do you mean by "capital"?

the production of surplus value for the capitalist class as a whole, i.e.
the objectification of abstract living labour including a portion of
surplus (and unpaid) labour
>2.  What questions are analyzed in the theory of the "process of
>*production* of capital"?

capitalist production as the production of surplus value, i.e. the origin
of gross profits
>Are there no quantitative variables determined?

yes, total living labour and total necessary labour: i.e. the total
exploitation time of the working class, and the total labour time embodied
in the goods left available to <orkers (the 'subsistence'). 'macro'
magnitudes which are independent from the rule governing 'micro'

this class relation cannot be analysed without a vision of the capitalist
process as a sequential monetary process.

This must be done in vol. I with simple (money) prices expressing labour

This is why I see  as questionable the tendency to cancel 'labour values'
in Marx's theory, as well as the redefinition of necessary labour in terms
which denies that in vol. I this category was used by Marx as identical to
the labour required to produce the means of subsistence. This is not
against the fact that variable capital was a money magnitude, as long as
the exchange relationship between the money commodity and the other
commodities is regulated by 'simple prices'.

There is an ambiguity in Marx's text on these points, and any reading that
cancel this ambiguity is problematic.

But all this you know very well before my answer.


	Riccardo Bellofiore
Office:	Department of Economics
	Piazza Rosate, 2
	I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: 	Via Massena, 51
	I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail	bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
tel: 	+39 035 277545 (direct)
	+39 035 277501 (dept. secr.)
	+39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: 	+39 035 249975

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST