[OPE-L:7804] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 08:57:26 EDT

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Riccardo Bellofiore wrote:

> At 13:33 -0400 9-10-2002, Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> >Quite to the contrary, there are many
> >passages, throughout the various drafts of Capital (as I have documented
> >in several papers), which suggest that Marx himself understood his own
> >logical method of the determination of the "Volume 3 total
> >surplus-value" to be a "one-stage" method.  The total surplus-value is
> >determined in in Volume 1 and then taken as given in Volume 3.
> I strongly disagree. I, as you (I would say, more than you 8-)) have 
> a properly MACRO-MONETARY view of exploitation (put forward as such 
> in English since at least 1988). but I know this is RECONSTRUCTION. 
> you say this is INTERPRETATION. now, the 'macro'-'micro' distinction 
> was foreign to Marx: so you have to do in your papers a lot of 
> 'bridges', more or less firm, to reach you 'demonstartion'.

Riccardo, what exactly do you strongly disagree with here?  That the total
surplus-value is determined in Volume 1 and taken as given in Volume
3?  Then how do you explain all the textual evidence that supports this

The terminology macro-micro was unknown to Marx, but not the distinction
between the total surplus-value and its individual parts.  This
distinction was emphasized by Marx throughout the various drafts of
Capital and the assumption that the total amount of surplus-value is
determined prior to its individual parts.  And, in discussing Marx's
theory, this is what I mean by macro/micro - the prior determination of
the total surplus-value, prior to its division into individual parts.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 00:00:00 EDT