# [OPE-L:5359] Re: value = K + S

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 09:20:03 EDT

```This is a response to Rakesh's 5349.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> >
> >In his latest post, Rakesh also continues to argue that total value "can
> >be resolved into" K + S, but is not detemined by K + S.
> >  To explore this
> >further, let's call the surplus-value into which value is resolved Sr.
> >Rakesh, are you arguing that this Sr is a different magnitude from
> >(i.e. is not equal to) the surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 by
> >the difference between new-value and variable capital?
>
> This is not Marx's definition of surplus value. That definition
> obviously could only hold under the assumption that c=0. Marx makes
> that as simplfying assumption for the purposes of analysis; he does
> not build it into his definition of surplus value.
>
> My definition of surplus value is total value, as monetarily
> expressed, minus cost price which is the money invested as constant
> and variable capital--in other words, M' minus M.

I did not say that Marx DEFINES surplus-value as new-value minus variable
capital (N - V).  Rather, I said (please look again) that Marx DETERMINES
surplus-value as new-value minus variable capital (N - V).  I agree that
surplus-value is DEFINED as (M' - M); Marx did that in Chapter 4 of Volume
1.  Then Marx DETERMINED, or explained, surplus-value as (N - V) in
Volume 1 in which Marx's theory of surplus-value is summarized in this
way.

The main point I want to emphasize and to which I will return below is
that surplus-value is determined in Volume 1.

> The definition of surplus value is a trivial thing.  The magnitude of
> surplus value however is determined by the occ and s/v, as
> demonstrated in volume 1.

So we seem to agree that the magnitude of surplus-value is determined in
Volume 1.  We may disagree on just how the magnitude of surplus-value is
determined, but we agree that it is determined in Volume 1, right?

Now my question to you again is: is this magnitude of surplus-value that
is determined in Volume 1 (what I have called S) the same as or different
from the surplus-value into which value is resolved in Volume 3 (Sr)?

>
> >  If so, why do you
> >think these two surplus-values are not equal?  And what textual evidence
> >is there for this interpretation?
>
> I am not changing my definition of what surplus value is. Surplus
> value always *is* total value, as monetarily expressed, minus cost
> price. Volume one is largely about the determinants of the magnitude
> of surplus value  relative to the capital invested:
>
> r = s/v divided by c/v + 1

You are switching here from the magnitude of surplus-value to the rate of
profit.  Volume 1 is mainly about the MAGNITUDE of surplus-value, not the
rate of profit.  The magnitude of surplus-value is defined in Chapter 4
and explained in Chapter 7 and the rest of the book.  The rate of profit
is not introduced in Volume 1 at all; it is introduced in Volume 3.

> >
> >On the other hand, if you think that Sr = S, then, since Marx stated that
> >Sr = P (total profit), then it follows that S = P, which is what I have
> >been arguing all along.
>
> There is no S in my interpretation as you have defined (new value
> minus variable capital). S is always a monetary residual, one of the
> two elements (the other being cost price) into which total value, as
> monetarily expressed, is resolved. In my interpretation S is always
> Sr. S or Sr never enter into the determination of value which is the
> sum of the value of the means of production and current labor.
> Surplus value (S) is always a resolved element (Sr).

But there is an S in your interpretation that is determined in Volume 1,
right (as just discussed)?

I am asking:  what is the relation between the surplus-value that is
determined in Volume 1 (S) and the surplus-value into which value is
resolved in Volume 3 (Sr), according to your interpretation?

> >
> >Furthermore, since we agree that total price of production is equal to
> >total value, if S = P, then it follows that the cost price K must be the
> >same in the determination of both value and price of production.
>
> So of course in my interpretatin S equals P (assuming no interest or
> rent). As Marx goes about it, the surplus value is determined first,
> summed and then distributed as profit (P) which is then equal to (S).

Please note that this equality between total surplus-value and total
profit (along with total value = total price of production) is assumed to
hold AFTER it has been acknowledged and emphasized that constant capital
and variable capital are equal to the prices of production of the inputs,
not equal to the values of the inputs.

I look forward to further discussion.