[OPE-L:7813] Re: 'Hic Rhodus, hic salta!'

From: glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 10:36:30 EDT

Re Fred's [7812]:

> 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?

[As expressed above:]We agree on this point.  

Yet, it seems to me that the very recognition of agreement on this issue raises other questions that need to be addressed.  E.g. *where specifically* is the lower level of abstraction where the magnitude of s is no longer taken as given and the more concrete analysis of crises and realization problems is required?  This seems to me to be 
a question of 'basic theory' rather than only a question associated
with the analysis of a specific conjunctural event.

In solidarity, Jerry

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