[OPE-L:5391] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: turnover time and surplus value

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 05:08:43 EDT

re my own 5390

>Yes, it is conceivable that if the means of production were 
>systematically bought below value, the mass of surplus value could 
>be enlarged thereby. But this in no way undermines the thesis that 
>live labor is the sole source of surplus value, for it is live labor 
>alone that transfers the value of those means to the output. Being 
>able to purchase means of production below value would NOT be a 
>source of surplus value without the unpaid work of live labor which 
>remains the sole source of surplus value. So I am at a loss why 
>exactly you think my interpretation undermines key claims of volume 

Let me emend my argument here. I don't see how Marx's "vol one" 
theory of exploitation is in any undermined if the sum of surplus 
value is enlarged by labor transferring gratis some additional value 
from under-priced means of production over and above the surplus 
value which derives from surplus labor. Unpaid live labor time 
remains the exclusive source of surplus value.

Moreover, let us say that after a complete transformation along the 
bortkiewicz-sweezy lines, the labor intensive means of production 
(dept i) output now sells below value; if surplus value is to be 
enlarged thereby the capital intensive luxuries (dept 3) will now 
have to sell above value. So the additional surplus value which 
results from the complete transformation (of course as long as labor 
transfers gratis the value of the means of production to the 
commodity output) proves illusory since the output on which the 
enlarged surplus value is spent has now become more expensive in 
price terms. This confirms Marx's vol 1 argument that in real terms 
the capitalist class cannot secure surplus value through the 
distribution and redistribution of value.

In short, my interpretation is perfectly consistent with volume one 
claims and in particular with the labor theory of value and surplus 

Just as importantly, I (as well as Allin) have yet to receive a reply 
from Fred or Alejandro why Marx bumbled at least twice into pointing 
out to double divergence. In my interpretation Marx did not lapse 
into logical error by underlining this point twice. For Allin, as for 
Fred and Alejandro, Marx was talking nonsense. I have argued that 
this is not true.


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