On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > The second equality states that the sum of surplus value > determines the (maximum) sum of capitalists' profits. This is a neologistic use of the term "equality". It is quite different from Marx: "the sum of the profits in all spheres of production must equal the sum of the surplus-values". Besides, your use of "maximum" is unwarranted. Are you being misled by the fact that the sum of profit is less than the sum of surplus value in the numerical example we've been looking at? With different assumptions regarding organic compositions, the post-transformation sum of profits might just as well exceed the pre-transformation surplus value. > I argue that it is grossly antithetical to Marxian theory to > hold the sum of surplus value or profit invariant in a > complete transformation exercise in which total price is > held constant while cost price is modified on the basis of > the transformation of the inputs. Allin makes no contact > with my argument. OK, your "adding up" critique. I think this is a red herring. I'm quite willing to accept imposing total price = total value on the transformation, at least for the sake of argument. In that case, as you say, the sum of profit will not remain invariant if the sum of cost-prices changes in the transformation. That's precisely the Bortkiewicz/Sweezy point: the sum of profit will not remain equal to the pre-transformation surplus value. (A problem will holding total price = total value is that it may be inconsistent with the monetary side of the system, if, as in Marx, money is a commodity with definite conditions of production and also subject to profit-rate equalization.) Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST