[OPE-L:4358] Re: produced and realized profit

Paul Cockshot (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:25:39 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

> I know of no textual evidence from Volume 2 that discusses a distinction
> between the surplus-value produced and the surplus-value realized, as
> two different magnitudes. Nor do I think that Marx argued in Volume 2
> the amount of surplus-value realized depends on capitalists'

Paul C:
Marx may not have been aware of it, but if you read volume 2 in the light
of Kalecki you can see that it is logically implied by the reproduction
schemes. Kalecki draws his analysis directly from a vol II type

I think that disagreement on this is very significant, as, in my opinion at
least, any attempt to extend Marxs analysis to the dynamics of the
economy is almost bound to either end up looking like Kalecki or be
directly derived from Kalecki.

Kaleckis most important discovery, one of the most significant discoveries
economics this century, was that profit depended causally upon capitalist
If people think that Kalecki was wrong on this then we should discuss it,
we will not get very far in discussing the effects of international trade
and state expenditure unless we agree on it.

In my opinion Kalecki made the most important contribution towards an
of volume 4 topics.

> As I understand Marx's reproduction schemes in Part 3 of Volume 2, the
> amount of surplus-value is taken as given, as already determined by the
> Volume 1 analysis. The amount of surplus-value is a given magnitude, not
> variable, in this analysis of reproduction. This given amount of
> surplus-value is spent to purchase means of subsistence or luxury goods,
> which enables the capitalists in depts. 2 and 3 to sell their goods. I
> of discussions where Marx said that the amount of surplus-value realized
> differ from the amount of surplus-value produced, due to the expenditures
> capitalists. This sounds to me more like Kalecki than Marx.
> So I ask Mike to please provide textual evidence and further arguments to
> support this interpretation of surplus-value realized in Volume 2. If
> is already written up somewhere, please send me a copy.

The isssue should not be whether Marx realised everything that Kalecki was
able to draw out from the reproduction schemes, but whether Kalecki was
in his deductions.