Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Nov 07 2005 - 16:14:26 EST


I can only repeat that I consider the terms S&D to belong to the surface
realm of economics as expressed in market prices. It would deal with those
many concerns that fall into the examination of competition itself and which
see market prices moving around prices of production, if I can use that

At the levels of analysis in the three vols of capital, (despite the fact
that Marx always illustrates his points as far as it is possible, as
appropriate,  given the stage of the argument he has reached), then the
problem of realisation is usually not considered as such. I simply won't
refer to this as treating S=D, its seems incorrect to me, and all that I
have read in Marx seems to me to say ' we don't start here'.

That's it

Cheers Paul

I trust you understand.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Paul Bullock wrote:
> > Fred,
> >
> >  what I had tried to say was that the terms 'demand' and 'supply' ,  as
> > your well known quotes show, are
> > taken by marx as  terms used, and from a  vocabulary used by, non
> > scientific, misleading and apologetic, forms of explanation. Marx does
> > not need to use them for his own purposes. The first quote you provide
> > establishes this, he shows that the idea of S=D is entirely misleading.
> > Obviously Marx is always taking up the bourgeois ideas of the time ...
> > but for us to confuse  'S=D'  with his theoretical assumption that there
> > are no problems with realisation when he treats capital as whole,
> > ccnfuses empiricist terminology, which has a completely different class
> > interest and method, with marx's scientific vocabulary.
> >
> > Above you ask  'What is the difference?'... from the Ch 10 you quote we
> > can see that the difference is that  for Marx ( p288 )..' The section of
> > society whose responsibility it is under the division of labour to spend
> > its labour on the production of these particular articles must receive
> > an equivalent in social labour represented in those articles that
> > satisfy its needs.  There is no necessary connection, however, but
> > simply a fortuitous one  etc etc...'
> Paul, I certainly agree that the connection between S and D is a
> "fortuitous one" in the real world.  But I also argue that Marx assumed
> S = D in his theory of the production and distribution of surplus-value.
> For example, his theory of prices of production assumes equal rates of
> profit, which in turn assumes S = D in all industries.
> > This is the issue that Marx assumes not to present any problems  when
> > eg he begins to deal eg with the reproduction schema. This assumption is
> > not the same as S=D, of  Says use values and money exchanged for them.
> > On p291 we find exactly this: '
> >
> > ' IF demand and supply cancel one another out, they cease to explain
> > anything, have no effect on market value and leave us completely in the
> > dark as to why this market value is expressed in precisely such a sum of
> > money and no other.'
> I agree with this, and it does not contradict my interpretation.  I agree
> that when S = D, they cease to explain anything.  I am not arguing that S
> and D explain anything.  Rather, I am arguing that Marx assumed S = D in
> order to ignore their influences on market prices and explain prices of
> production, the center of gravity of market prices (as part of a general
> theory of the distribution of surplus-value).
> Paul, I think we agree, don't we, that in Marx's theory of the
> distribution of surplus-value in Volume 3, the total amount of
> surplus-value is taken as a predetermined magnitude, as determined in the
> Volume 1 theory of the production of surplus-value?
> Comradely,
> Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 13 2005 - 00:00:02 EST