[OPE-L:7806] Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 09:07:08 EDT

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote:

> Why not think in different terms? Why not suppose that Marx was trying
> to explain how surplus value is produced? How it could be augmented
> (absolutely, relatively)?  What were the consequences of the predominat
> ways of increasing surplus value? I would like to understand better why
> it is so important the question of quantity determination of surplus
> value? You could clarify me on this issue. But then again, it is not a
> problem of you being obscure. It is more likely that I got lost in the
> debate. That happens very often.

Francisco, thanks for your reply.

How do you think Marx explained "how surplus-value is produced" without a
quantitative determination of surplus-value?  (Or how could he?)  I
thought you argued in previous posts that Marx's "qualitative" theory of
surplus-value cannot be separated from his quantitative theory of
suprlus-value (which I agree with).  

The issue of the quantitative determination of the total surplus-value in
Volume 1 has to do with the logical relation between the magnitudes in
Volume 1 and Volume 3 (especially the total surplus-value) and with the
infamous "transformation problem" in Part 2 of Volume 3.  That is why I
think it is important.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT