**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Previous message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5550] Re: Re: William of Ockam's Razor and Political Economy"**In reply to:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5542] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Reply:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This is reply to Rakesh's (5540). I argued in (5538): > >1. Marx's theory of the magnitude of surplus-value is presented in > >Chapter 7 of Volume 1. According to this theory, surplus-value is > >determined by the following implicit equation: > > > >(1) S = m (L - Ln) > > > >where m is money value added per hour, L is the total working day, and Ln > >is necessary labor ( = V/m). In Marx's numerical example to illustrate > >his theory in Chapter 7, m = 0.5sh/hr, L is first 6 hours and then 12 > >hours, and Ln is 6 hours. In the first case (L = 6 hrs), S = 0; and in > >the second case (L = 12 hrs), S = 3 sh. > > > >Please notice that neither constant capital nor the value transferred from > >the means of production appears in the above equation. In other words the > >magnitude of surplus-value is INDEPENDENT of C or value transferred. It > >makes no difference for the determination of the magnitude of S whether C > >= 24 sh or C = 240 sh. > > > > > > > >2. Marx emphasized this point in Chapter 9 of Volume 1 in the > >introduction of his key concept of the rate of surplus-value. Since S is > >independent of C, S should be related to variable capital only. That is > >what the rate of surplus-value does: S/V. > > > > > >3. In Chapter 11 of Volume 1 ("The Rate and Mass of Surplus-value"), Marx > >took variable capital per worker (Vi) and the rate of surplus-value > >(RS) as given, and then determined the mass of surplus-value produced by n > >workers employed by a given capital, according to following equation (with > >different notation): > > > >(2) S = RS (Vi) n > > > >(3) S = RS (V) where V = n Vi > > > >In Marx's main numerical example in Chapter 11, RS = 1.0, Vi = 3 sh, > >n = 100 workers, and thus S = 300 sh. > > > >Please note once again that the mass of surplus-value does not depend in > >any way on constant capital or the value transferred from the means of > >production. Rakesh replied in 5540: > All these formulas from vol 1 simply and totally evade my point. > > Marx can make these assumptions in vol 1; the assumptions are dropped > in vol 3, and the crucial one is dropped even after Marx has written > up the transformation table in Capital 3, ch 9. So your evidence from > the transformation tables (below), much less vol 1, just miss my > point. > > > Since Marx assumes that the value of the means of production or more > specifically of the consumed means of production as that value > appears in the output is the same as its price, he can further assume > that the value of the money advanced as constant capital and the > value of the consumed means of production as they appear in the final > output simply cancel themselves out. > > So it then follows that surplus value will depend on variable capital > and the rate of exploitation alone. C will not enter into it, as you > say. > > > What I am saying is that in vol 3 Marx no longer assumes that the > value transferred gratis by labor from the means of production is the > same as the flow price of the machine. Once this assumption is > relaxed, it is now possible that the value of the money advanced in > any one branch as constant capital may be different than the value of > the consumed means of production as they appear in the final product. MY REPLY: 1. Rakesh, you seem to agree here that the equations I presented in my last post from Volume 1 of Capital (reproduced above) accurately express Marx's theory of the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume 1, right? This seems to be different from what you have said in previous posts, in which you argued (as I understood it) that S is determined by the equation: S = value - K and that S is determined this way in both Volume 1 and Volume 3. For example, you said in (5390): "The magnitude of surplus-value is always total value, as monetarily expressed, minus cost price. THAT'S WHAT IT IS IN VOLUME 1; THAT'S WHAT IT IS IN VOLUME 3. (emphasis added) But your equation above implies that S depends in part on C (since K = C + V), which directly contradicts the equations from Volume 1 that I have presented. So your equation cannot express the determination of S in Volume 1. Rakesh, have you changed your mind on this point, or have I missed something? 2. But now you say that these equations for the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume 1 ARE DROPPED IN VOLUME 3. You do not say so explicitly in this post, but I presume you mean that the magnitude of surplus-value is determined in Volume 3 according to your equation above, right? Let me make sure I understand this: are you arguing that in Volume 3 Marx CHANGED THE METHOD OF DETERMINATION of the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value, from the equations I presented in my previous post to your equation above? If this is what you are arguing, then this would be no small matter. Indeed I would say that this is the biggest matter of all in Marx's theory. Marx's theory is mainly about the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value. So if Marx indeed changed his method of determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume 3, then one would expect an extensive discussion of this all-important modification in his theory, right? But I know of NO such discussion in Chapter 9 of Volume 3 or elsewhere in Marx's manuscripts. Rakesh, if there are such discussions, would you please send the references? In the absence of such references, I find it highly unlikely that Marx would have changed the method of determination of the all-important magnitude of surplus-value without ever mentioning this fundamental modification. That is one reason I argue that Marx did NOT CHANGE his method of the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume 3. The magnitude of surplus-value is determined by the theory presented in Volume 1 (and expressed in the equations I have presented) and this does not change in Volume 3. Rather, the magnitude of surplus-value that is determined in Volume 1 is TAKEN AS GIVEN in Volume 3, in which the question is not the production of surplus-value, but the distribution of surplus-value. One more response below. > But I am not denying this. Since in these transformation tables Marx > IS STILL ASSUMING that the value of the money advanced as constant > capital will reappear in the same magnitude in the product which > embodies the value of the consumed means of production, he is > right--to repeat myself--to say at this point that the sum of > surplus value in any branch will depend entirely on the rate of > exploitation and the variable capital advanced. > > > At this point in the presentation it is not possible that the sum of > surplus value in any branch could be higher or lower depending on > whether the means of prod sold below or above value because it is > still being assumed that value transferred is the same as the flow > price. Once Marx gives us reason to see why value and price of > production differ, he then goes back and revises this assumption > which he has been carrying since vol 1 and which is built into the > transformation tables. Rakesh, exactly where did Marx "go back and revise this assumption" (that the magnitude of S depends on V and RS, and is independent of C) "which he has been carrying since Volume 1 and which is built into the transformation process"? Where did Marx discuss the new method of determination of the magnitude of surplus-value? As I have said, I know of no such discussion. I look forward to your reply. Thanks again. Comradely, Fred

**Next message:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Previous message:**Allin Cottrell: "[OPE-L:5550] Re: Re: William of Ockam's Razor and Political Economy"**In reply to:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5542] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Next in thread:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Reply:**Rakesh Narpat Bhandari: "[OPE-L:5552] Re: Re: Re: the assumptions necessary for the two equalities to hold?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30
: Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT
*