[OPE-L:4501] Re: Re: Re: what is Volume 1 about?

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 03:31:17 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

Which means in my interpretation

(2)   M'   =   m (Li + Ld)  (indirect and direct labor)

(3)   M    =   m VMP + m VWG (MP/WG value of means of production& wage goods)

On the assumption that the inputs sold at value

(4)   m Ls or dM    =   m (Li + Ld) minus (m VMP + m VWG)

So the question remains what happens to M and thus dM when the means 
of production and wage goods are no longer assumed to sell at prices 
proportional to value but rather at prices of production?

I just don't see how this question can be evaded.

Moreover, Fred, if you can do the implied (1) and assume that surplus 
labor has a monetary expression, why can't I assume that the value of 
a commodity as the indirect and direct labor which it embodies also 
has a monetary expression allowing it (without confusion of units) to 
be resolved or broken down into the monetary components of cost price 
and surplus value?

I must say that I am frustrated that you would argue that I am 
confusing units by assuming that total value has a price expression 
on the basis of an assumed monetary expression of labor value--you 
have been arguing for such conversions for over a month now, and then 
question the procedure when I do it!  You have done the same thing to 
give surplus value a monetary expression!

Of course our difference is in our equation for (2). If I understand 
you, you are saying that output price is determined by adding up the 
cost price and the surplus labor value, presumably as monetarily 
expressed (or you would have confused your units!)

(5)     (m VMP + m VWG) + m Ls => M'

That is, you are saying final price is determined by the addition of 
cost price and surplus value. This would mean that if cost price were 
to increase without any change in the value of the inputs or the 
outputs you would still have final prices rise! That is, you are 
ensnared in adding up theory of price.

Yours, Rakesh

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