# [OPE-L:4546] reply to Fred (6)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Nov 20 2000 - 04:36:50 EST

```>
>
>
>7.  The third consequence of your interpretation listed above (that the
>total surplus-value is not equal to the total profit) is very serious.  It
>contradicts the basic quantitative premise of all of Volume 3: that the
>total amount of surplus-value is determined prior to its division into
>individual parts and is not affected by the subsequent division into
>parts.

Fred, I have shown that in the iteration which I propose the mass of
surplus value is always determined prior to its division into
subsequent parts.

The total mass of surplus value which is available for distribution
is total value or price (its monetary expression) minus cost price.
In the transformation set of equations which I propose, my fourth and
eighth equations do have this determined first on the left hand side
and then set  the sum of branch profits equal to it on the right. Of
course since we are using simultaneous framework for the purposes of
internal critique, there is no real temporal sequence, but the
equations which I propose can be read this way.

the fourth equation  defines surplus value as total value minus cost
price and then determines the sum of the individual branch profits as
equal to surplus value)

(1) c1 + v1 +s1 = c1 + c2 + c3 (C)
(2) c2 + v2 +s2 = v1 + v2 + v3 (V)
(3) c3 + v3 +s3 = s1 + s2 + s3 (SVA)
(4) (C + V + SVA) - (C + V) = s1 + s2 + S3

On Marx's assumption, the set of transformation equations should be

(5) (1+r) c1x + v1y = Cx
(6) (1+r) c2x + v2y = Vy
(7) (1+r) c3x + v3y = r(Cx + Vy) (SVB)
(8) (Cx + Vy + SVB) - (Cx + Vy) = r(c1x + v1y) + r(c2x + v2y) + r(c3x + v3y)

The invariance condition of course is

(9) (C + V + SVA) = (Cx + Vy + SVB),

I must ask whether you have even noticed why I have argued that in a
complete transformation the labor theory of value itself requires the
mass of surplus value be modified in accordance with the left hand
side of equation (8), instead of held invariant.

Do you understand my objections to  Bortkiewicz-Sweezy-Meek that the
mass of surplus value should not be assumed to be invariant? that
this assumption leads to an adding up theory of price? That any
modification of cost price consequent upon the transformation of the
inputs has to lead in terms of Marxian theory to an opposite
modification in the sum of surplus value as long as we are assuming
that the total value and price of the commodity output remains the
same throughout the transformation?

That is, assume you are wrong and that you are stuck with
Bortkiewicz-Sweezy's value denominated tableau and you have to
transform the inputs and outputs both into the same prices of
production. Do you think the mass of surplus value should remain the
same in the unmodified and modified scheme?

yours, rb
```

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST