Re: [OPE-L] "Levels of abstraction"

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sat Jan 26 2008 - 08:42:05 EST

on 2008-01-26 14:26 Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> This paradox is solved by Fred Moseley (and Paul Cockshott) only by
> saying total surplus value does not equal total profits (because total
> unproductive labour costs are deducted from total surplus value to
> obtain total profit), but in that case, Marx's two identities (total
> surplus value = total profits, total prices = total values) cannot
> hold even in theory, such that deviations of prices from values would
> fully cancel each other out in aggregate.
> An alternative solution would be to exclude unproductive labour costs
> from the calculation of net value added, on the ground that they do
> not in fact add net new value. Yet these costs are part of the
> total value of gross output.

Jurriaan, I can honestly not see what the fuss is about. It seems to me
that you are making the issue unnecessarily complicated.

I doubt whether anyone has seriously claimed that in a real economy the
identity "total surplus value = total profits" holds. Total profits are
a subset of the monetary surplus value realised in each firm. Surplus
value breaks down into profits of enterprise, interest and dividends,
rents and other non-production costs.

Have not Shaikh and Tonak showed that a such an accounting is perfectly

//Dave Z

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