[OPE-L:4725] Re: "Don't go like that" (Was "What is Volume I about?")

From: Drewk (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 19:25:43 EST

A reply to Rakesh Bhandari's OPE-L 4534.

In prior posts, I have shown that Rakesh's interpretation of
Marx's value theory must be rejected, because it is incompatible
with the theory of which it is the interpretation.  Specifically,
under Rakesh's interpretation, surplus-labor isn't the sole source
of profit.  Indeed, under Rakesh's interpretation, there can be
surplus-labor but negative profit, and negative surplus-labor but
positive profit.

In OPE-L 4534, Rakesh tries to deny some of the implications of
his interpretation.  I have read his remarks several times now.
Some of them are digressions on monopoly power, etc., that have
nothing to do with the matter at hand.  One comment, however, does
engage the issue.   Rakesh asserts that the "surplus-value" that
arises from nowhere in his interpretation is in fact a "transfer"
of surplus-value from the past.

Unfortunately, this is left as an assertion by Rakesh.  He does
not prove it, nor even try to prove it.  I am convinced he is
wrong, that he's engaged in double counting.  But neither my
intuition nor his counts for anything here.  It is up to him to
prove his assertion, or to fail trying to do so.   Until such time
as he proves the assertion, I stand by my demonstration that his
interpretation implies that surplus-labor isn't the sole source of

I note that, since the matter under consideration is quantitative,
the proof must be quantitative as well.  The numbers must add up.
There must be no double counting.  Appeals to intuition don't cut

In a subsequent post responding to someone else, Rakesh suggested
that he couldn't come up with *realistic* examples in which, under
his interpretation, there is  surplus-labor but negative profit,
or negative surplus-labor but positive profit.   Of course not.
But that's irrelevant.  What is at issue is whether, under his
interpretation, surplus-labor is NECESSARY and/or SUFFICIENT for
positive profit.  (It is neither necessary nor sufficient; so
surplus-labor is simply not the "cause" or source of profit under
Rakesh's interpretation.)  What is not at issue is whether, under
realistic conditions, surplus-labor and profit just HAPPEN to
coexist, i.e. coexist for reasons that have nothing to do with
surplus-labor being the source of profit.

Andrew Kliman

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST