[OPE-L:7812] Re: Re: 'Hic Rhodus, hic salta!'

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 09:29:32 EDT

On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu wrote:

> Re Fred's [7805]:
> > Jerry, the magnitude of s that is taken as given in Volume 3 has 
> > already  been determined in Volume 1.  It does not have to be 
> > determined later; it  has already been determined, by the quantity > of surplus labor.	Do you see what I mean?
> Fred, the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume
> One was made under the *assumption* that the entire surplus-value 
> created in production would be actualized in exchange.  Therefore
> the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume Three has not been determined
> except for the *special case* where the entire surplus-value is actualized.  In other words, the magnitude of s in Volume 3 will equal the magnitude that is given in Volume One *if any only if* the reality corresponds to this restrictive assumption.  But, one would think that during the contractionary phase of the trade cycle this assumption will _not_ hold as there are unsold inventories of commodities.  Thus, if we are going to talk about the magnitude of surplus-value during periods of crisis then this restrictive assumption must be dropped.  Do you see what I mean?

Yes, I think I do, and I think I mostly agree.  Thanks for the

My point has been that the theory of the distribution of surplus-value in
Volume 3 takes the total surplus-value as given, and that this total
surplus-value that is taken is given in Volume 3 has been determined by
the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1.  This total surplus-value is not
affected by the distribution of surplus-value, i.e. by the equalization of
profit rates across industries and the further division of this total
surplus-value into interest, rent, etc.  

Both Volume 1 and Volume 3 are at a high level of abstraction and assume
that there is no realization problem.  The more concrete analysis of
crises and realization problems would be at a lower level of abstraction,
beyond the three volumes of Capital.  

Do you agree or disagree?

Thanks again.


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