[OPE-L:7884] Re: Volume 1 about the total surplus-value

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 07:43:34 EST

Re 7882

Hi there Fred,

Have been re-reading your stuff lately and have to admit to 
struggling to grasp the meaning of the following:

> Yes, this is logically possible, but wouldn't it be better if the
> total surplus-value that is taken in Volume 3 were already determined
> by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1?  Wouldn't that be a
> stronger theory than just taking the total surplus-value as given,
> without a theoretical determination?
> In any case, that is what Marx said he was doing - that the total
> surplus-value taken as given in Volume 3 has already been determined
> by the theory of surplus-value in Volume 1; i.e. by surplus labor.  

Especially, what does 'theoretical determination' mean?

How does it related to 'cause'?

For me, Vol 1 tells us for sure that the substance of SV is surplus 
labour but it provides no guarantees that the appearance form, viz, 
'dM', is proportional in magnitude to the substance, viz. surplus 

Best wishes,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 00:00:01 EST