[OPE-L:5367] Re: Re: value = K + S

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Fri Apr 20 2001 - 02:23:40 EDT

In 5359 Fred reiterates:

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

Again I disagree; the determinants of surplus value include turnover 
time, which is not included in volume I.

>>  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)?

Again, I don't get this distinction between s and sr; there is only 
one surplus value--the component other than cost price into which 
total value (the primary, basic magnitude) is resolved.

>>  >  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.

In one of his letters to engels, Marx emphasized that the whole 
theory of a falling rate of profit due to upward pressure on the occ 
is already implicit in volume one. At any rate, I don't agree that 
volume one exhausts the determinants of the magnitude of surplus 

>>  >
>>  >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?

Identity; that's the relation.

>>  >
>>  >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.

After that acknowledgement has been made, we can't then assume that 
we know the value of the output directly (or the value transferred 
from the inputs to the outputs) and and then go ahead and measure it. 
It is only  something we infer from price data.

Fred, are we getting anywhere?

I take it that you think my interpretation which does not have Marx 
lapsing into logical incoherence (as in yours) however does violate 
what Geert has called the architectonic of three volumes of capital. 
That is, I can't have Marx respecifying the determinants of the 
magnitude of surplus value in vol 3. Since in my interpretation of 
the transformation problem it is possible that the magnitude of 
surplus value could be increased if the inputs were to sell below 
value, it seems that I am raising vol 1 concerns in vol 3. And for a 
reason which you have not yet specified this cannot be allowed, or is 
enough to invalidate my interpretation. Am I understanding your 
argumentative strategy?

Well I have argued in two posts (5127,5159) to which there has been 
no reply that I do not in any way violate the spirit of three volumes 
of capital in the way I handle the transformation problem *on its own 
terms*. And do remember that I do not accept those terms. I agree 
with you--the inputs are not in values or even simple prices, they 
don't have to be transformed into prices of production.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT