Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 23:38:45 EST

I don't think point 1 is correct, Fred.  That's one thing that Michael
Heinrich has right in his article on capital in general.  He argues that
total social capital depends on competition  -- e.g. equalization of profit
rates.  So if analysis in Book III depends on competition and the analysis
of Book I doesn't, then total social capital doesn't work for both.   Total
social capital is appropriate for the analysis of capital as money capital
and real capital, a theme that runs through Part V of Book III.  But this
analysis presuppposes the equalization of rates of profit by means of
competition.  Perhaps the distinction gets obscured insofar as the circuit
of money capital is taken as the framework for analysis.

On the other hand, this is not to endorse Heinrich's critique of capital in


----- Original Message -----
From: "Pen-L Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

> Quoting Philip Dunn <hyl0morph@YAHOO.CO.UK>:
> > Levels of abstraction? There are none. Suggest some.
> The two main levels of abstraction in Marx's theory are:
> 1.  Capital in general - determination of the total surplus-value
> produced by the total social capital.
> 2.  Competition (or many capitals) - determination of the division of
> the total surplus-value into individual parts.
> Comradely,
> Fred
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST