# [OPE-L:4363] Re: Re: Re: Technical change and general truths

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 05:33:23 EST

```In my 4362, I had written:

The fourth equation says that the mass of surplus value [total value-(modified)
total cost price] does not equal but DETERMINES WHAT THE BRANCH PROFITS ADD UP
TO.
_______

there may be some controversy as to how I define surplus value. but
Marx himself is quite clear:

"the surplus value or profit consists precisely in the excess of
commodity value over its COST PRICE, ie., in the excess sum of the
total sum of labour contained in the commodity over the sum of labor
that is ACTUALLY PAID FOR IT. The surplus value, from wherever it may
derive, is consequently an advance over and above the total capital
advanced. This excess then stands in a certain ratio to the total
capital, as expressd by the fraction s/c, where C stands for total
capital. We thus obtain *the rate of profit* s/c=s/c+v, as distinct
from the rate of surplus value." capital 3, p. 133 (vintage; my
emphases)

I am at a total lost why the mass of surplus value has been
stipulated to be equal in the unmodified, so called value scheme and
the transformed, so called price scheme. Total value/price of course
should remain equal.

BUT SINCE THE MASS OF SURPLUS VALUE IS TOTAL VALUE, LESS COST PRICE
AND THE INCOMPLETENESS OF THE TRANSFORMATION IS PRECISELY ABOUT THE
FAILURE TO TRANSFORM THE INPUTS AND THUS MODIFY THE COST PRICES, HOW
COULD ANYONE THINK THAT AFTER THE MODIFICATION OF THE COST PRICES,
THE MASS OF SURPLUS VALUE WOULD REMAIN THE SAME?

What the second equality means for Marx is that the sum of surplus
value is determined first by subtracting from total value the sum
total of the cost prices, which then divided by that sum total of
cost prices yields r or the so called mark up which then applied to
the respective industry cost prices generates a sum of profit equal
to the mass of surplus value.

The second equality is a relation of determination, from the macro
magnitude of the mass of surplus value to the average profit rate on
total capital to the prices of production at the micro level of
individual industries. Macro magnitudes are prior to, and
determinative of, micro magnitudes.

In the transformed, so called price scheme, the mass of surplus
value/profit should be different than it is in the unmodified, so
called value scheme!

But instead Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Cottrell all allow for total price
(1000) to exceed total value (875) in the transformed, so called
price scheme. This allows prices  to be determined free of value
determination even in the aggregate; there is no way a transformation
on Marx's premises should be allowed to do that. How could a change
in the price of the input means of production change the value of
those means as consumed in the commodity output? How could a change
in the price paid for a certain quantity of wage goods with which
workers are hired change the new value which this same number of
workers are adding to those means of production? The transformation
of the inputs should have no effect on the total value as given in
the unmodified, so called value scheme. That so called equality is an
invariance condition; the equality (mass of surplus value=sum of
branch profits) is not an invariance condition or an identity; it is
a relation of determination.

All the best, Rakesh
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST