Re: [OPE-L] price of production/supply price/value

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sun Jan 29 2006 - 13:08:45 EST

I meant distinction, not discussion:

Yes, I think we should obliterate this DISTINCTION even though
Marx was committed to it. In fact I don't
think your or Marx's macro theory is macro enough! Surplus value is not first
produced at the level of individual capitals or even individual branches.
Surplus value is a macro-economic magnitude produced by the
transindividual subject the working class.

In a recent message I wrote:

To my mind, surplus value is not produced at the level of individual
capitals or even
branches. For this implies that if one were to take away some
individual capitals or a whole
branch, then surplus value would be reduced accordingly. But the
capitalist totality is more
than a sum of its parts (it is not a Cartesian totality, to use
Stephen Cullenberg's term), for said taking away may not just reduce
surplus value but
destroy the system as such--there would be no surplus value at all. Just as we
say that moving a heavy table is not the work of the individuals Jim
and Bob but of the
collective or transindividual subject Jim-and-Bob, surplus value is
not produced by
separate workforces at individual capitals. Surplus value is produced
by the collective
working class. It is a macro phenomenon produced by a transindividual subject
(I think Lucien Goldmann's theory of the transindividual subject may be
one of the most important contributions to Marxist philosophy); surplus
value is appropriated at the level of the totality. Marx's social
ontology is based
on the reality of transindividual subjects. Methodological
individualist Marxism is
an impossibility.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 30 2006 - 00:00:02 EST