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

From: Pen-L Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2007 - 22:46:08 EDT

Quoting Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM>:

>> In my view, the crucial point is the determination of the total
>> surplus-value prior to its division into individual parts, for which
>> there is very substantial evidence, which I have presented in several
>> papers.
> Hi Fred:
> Let's look at what *you* mean here by "determination".   According
> to your *macro* perspective:
> M =  C + V
> where the quantity of M is given.
> This is not "determination": M does not "determine" C + V above;
> M is simply *assumed* to equal C + V.

I have not said that this is determination.  This is a definition.  C
and V are taken as given, as is their sum M.

> Since you have a *macro* theory, you have to  stipulate
> what proportion  M is of the total supply of money in the system.
> This you have not done.

Why do I have to do this?

> You are also implicitly assuming, btw, that capitalist class unproductive
> consumption equals -0-  for the period t - 1.

I donít see why this is true either.  The theory of the determination
of the total surplus-value in Vol. 1 does not require any assumption
about how the total surplus-value is divided between consumption and
accumulation.  Ditto for the theory of the division of the total
surplus-value into individual parts in Vol. 3.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT