Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 14:41:42 EDT

it may well have been how  the question was expressed as i took it up.
Clearly value and surplus value exist simultaneously, are expressed by
their concrete form of appearances, BUT as you seem also to say... value and
surplus value has to be produced BEFORE the concrete forms taken on by value
can arise from the subsequent exchanges between product and money . If you
are saying that at any one time, at the very moment of production, the
extant social arrangements already determine the exact distribution of
surplus value both in specific forms and quantities, then there would seem
to be a loss of any concept of struggle between classes.

First value is produced, and must exist before sale - so I agree with you -
Marx ridicules those who imagine that goods have no price ( an ideal price
as Marx calls it both in the Grundrisse and Vol 1), and money no value,
before exchange . If you want the refs I can send them. BUT of course if the
product is not sold, its value is not realised and a money 'recalculation'
takes place. This is a 'loss' of value, not the denial of its previous
production - otherwise the capitalist would not speak of a loss.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Brown" <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

> Paul,
> Nope. From the perpsective of the system as whole money, profit, wages and
interest must (and do) all exist simultaneusly to value and surplus value.
> Value and surplus value must reflect themselves in money categories
(essence must appear) which requires the simultaneous exitsence of those
> You probably have in mind thinking of a production period for the system
as a whole, in which case as you say 'obviously' we have a temporal
sequence. That is, taking a 'system-wide' perspective can mean different
things depending on context.
> I am engaging with, e.g. Michael L.'s recent post  (he argued for
simultaneity), with Rakesh's posts and, more generally, considering the
debates regarding value theory where a key point is whether and in what
sense value exists prior to actual sale. Many deny that it does so. It then
seems to me difficult to think in terms of a production period. How can we
think in these terms (insofar as we are thinking of value production) if
value doesn't exist prior to sale? Hence I am trying to answer this question
whilst retaining the important insight that essence must appear.
> Many thanks,
> Andy
> Andrew,
> the realisation of surplus value in its different forms is obviously
> temporal, the productive worker does not create rent per se. This is the
> case for the system as a whole and the individual circuit.
> Paul Bullock

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT