[OPE-L:4498] Re: Re: what is Volume 1 about?

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 01:10:01 EST

Hi Riccardo,

Thanks for your (4494).

I finally got around to reading your paper you sent me recently, and
rereading your paper gives me hope that we have broadly similar
interpretations of Volume 1.  Not entirely the same, to be sure, but at
least similar in the respect that surplus-value is defined by Marx in
terms of money (i.e. as dM) and that he main question in Volume 1 is the
determination of this monetary surplus-value.  

In your paper you say:

the capitalist SURPLUS VALUE sees the light of day."
(emphasis added)

This sentence, and other parts of your paper, seem to suggest: (1) that
surplus-value is something different from surplus labor (surplus-value is
the effect and surplus labor is the cause), and (2) that surplus-value is
defined in terms of money.  

Do I understand you correctly?  I sure hope so, because this is what I
have been saying.  More precisely, I have argued that the relation between
surplus-value (dM) and surplus labor (Ls) is the following:  

	dM   =   m Ls

Aside from our disagreement about the precise definition of necessary
labor and surplus labor (which we will get to soon), do you agree with the
general form of this equation, and that this equation expresses what
Marx's theory of surplus-value, as presented in Chapter 7 of Volume 1?

And, if surplus-value is defined in terms of money, then so are constant
capital and variable capital, right?

Comradely (and hopefully),

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST