[OPE-L:7620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chris A on VF theory

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Sep 06 2002 - 12:51:45 EDT

Chris A writes in 7597

>The fundamanetal value relation is
>Value of a commodity is a function of livinglabour + dead labour
>[labour in susbsistence goods appears nowhere here; all the dead labour is
>in means of production]
>Then it is realised hence
>Value = c + added value
>v appears nowhere here. It only appears when we ask what happens to the
>added value
>Value = c + v + s
>But this is ex post derivation. To read this as a determination of Value is
>a horrendous error of vulgar economy Marx polemicised against.

I am in fundamental agreement with this and attempted to make 
something of a similar point with my respective formulations for 
value's determination (dead labor + current labor) and resolution 
(Value => c+v+s)

>ESSENTIALLY v is not advanced, it is produced (regardless of when wages are
>actually paid; tho' it is worth recalling Marx stresses the workers always
>give credit to the capitalist.).

But this is the important implication which I did not underline.

I find myself in enthusiastic agreement with what Chris says in this post.

Yours, Rakesh

>Now if we turn to V2 this seems to depict a circuit where M is shown to
>purchase factors including LP. But of course just because it is a circuit M
>cannot be taken as given; it is in fact identical with Mprime as is obvious
>in two of the circuits and obvious if one grasps what a circuit is. In a
>circuit it makes no sense to speak of advances. Everything is both before
>and after everything else. Of course there are orthogonal flows into and
>out of the circuit, expenditures and receipts; but this makes little
>More seriously, the circuit depicts already constituted capital as such a
>cycle of expenditures and receipts and in this way completely mystifies the
>essential relations. Although it is mid-way between the essentialities of
>V1 and the illusions springing from the profit form of V3 it is closer to
>the latter in being - like it - at the level of appearances (albeit
>objective appearances). An intelligent bourgeois like Schumpeter could no
>doubt accept the circuit as an accurate description while still rejecting
>a) the truth that delta m is a function of SL appears nowhere in this
>circuit; to the contrary delta m appears to result from all the purchased
>factors operating together -
>b) the truth that workers produce their own wages appears nowhere in this
>circuit; on the contrary the depiction of the circuit hides the fact
>workers give credit to capitalists. -
>c) if one makes a violent abstraction from the reality of the circuit and
>breaks in at M then the placing of the purchase of labour power appears as
>an advance; but this is seriously misleading for all the above reasons.
>(btw what did Marx say about the 'wage fund'??)
>The appearances, in other words, distort the essential relations.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT