[OPE-L] Fred's argument about the deduction (retro)

From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Mon Jan 14 2008 - 12:24:40 EST

What I call the "Moseley paradox" was first stated by Murray Smith, so it is not something original I thought up (although I arrived at the same conclusion back in the 1980s, and noted out some additional implications). See OPE-L post Tue, 3 Feb 1998 where Fred comments:


"4. Finally, Murray makes a "still more fundamental point", and argues 
that there is an "elementary logical problem" with the standard 
interpretation: "how can a cost - any cost - be both a "deduction from 
surplus-value" and a component of surplus-value? How can a deduction 
from surplus-value still be a part of it?"
I do not see the logical problem here. The total amount of surplus-value 
(S) is first determined as the difference between the total value added 
(VA) and the variable capital (V)

S = VA - V

According to Marx's theory, a part of this surplus-value has go to 
recover the unproductive circulation costs (U). In this way, these costs 
are "deductions from surplus-value." The remaining difference - after the 
"deduction from surplus-value" - is the profit of capitalists (P):

P = S - U

In other words, the total surplus-value is divided into two parts: one 
part that pays for unproductive costs and the remaining profit for 

S = P + U

In this sense, the unproductive costs of circulation are both deducted 
from surplus- value and are one part of the surplus-value. 

So I don't see the "elementary logical problem". "


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST