[OPE-L:7846] Re: Re: 'Hic Rhodus, hic salta!'

From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Sun Oct 13 2002 - 18:23:53 EDT

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?

I think here you should not use the same phrase surplus - value to refer to two
different things
- the value produced over and above the share going to
labour, and
- the money profits of the capitalist class.

These are categories at different levels of abstraction. The laws governing
the latter are quite different from the laws governing the former - indeed
as Kalecki indicates the causal relations involved appear almost inverted
in the case of profits.

> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 22 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT