Marx vs. Roemer by Gil Skillman 12 March 2002 21:46 UTC
>CB: Because we are examining this somewhat rigorously, I would just comment >that the _magnitude_ of value is what is determine by socially necessary >labor time. I don't know if that distinction matters to your argument. Gil: I agree with the distinction you're drawing. I don't think it matters, since my statement presupposes that labor is the source of value as Marx defines the term in KI/1, but better safe than sorry. In the same spirit, I'll note that I'd favor the statement that "labor is the only source of value" over the statement "labor is the only source of new exchange-value," since Marx draws a distinction between the two, such that exchange-value is understood as the necessary "mode of expression, of form of appearance, of value." Again, I don't think it matters for the purpose at hand, but there's at least one point in the argument to follow where the distinction may arise. ^^^^^^^ CB: OK , agree. Exchange-value is the mode of expression of value, not use-value. ^^^^^ > Gil: What I am saying is that Marx stipulates *2* >conditions for the existence of surplus value, as reflected in his Chapter >5 comment "Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is >equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have >its origin both in circulation and not in circulation." (p. 268, Penguin >ed.) My point is that Marx's argument in Chapter 5 never addresses the >possibility that surplus value's "origin...in circulation" may *require* at >least targeted price-value disparities, *entirely granting* the point that >the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value >because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value. >Because of this lacuna, his subsequent conclusion that price-value >disparities are mere "disturbing incidental circumstances which are >irrelevant to the actual course of the process" (p. 269, footnote) is >invalid. > >^^^^ >CB: (Again, just because we are doing a fine tooth comb treatment, "surplus >value" and "capital" are not entirely identical, but it may not matter. I'm >not trying to be picky, but I am thinking that as you are doing a very fine >graded analysis, these types of details cause a question mark to sort of >popup in one's mind) No, that's fine, it's better to make these choices explicit. As far as I can tell, "capital" in the passage I cited above is shorthand for "the transformation of money into capital," a phrase that Marx uses in the passages immediately preceding and immediately following the one I cite. Again as far as I can tell, Marx uses "the transformation of money into capital" as a corollary of "creation of surplus value"--compare, for example, his usage of "surplus value" at the top of p. 268 and the near-parallel use of "transformation of money into capital" near the bottom. ^^^^^^^ CB: Page 268 : Is that in Chapter 5 ? I hesitate, because it seems that the creation of surplus value is in production. I have more that idea that in M-C...P...C'-M', the surplus-values are created at P. The transformations of money into capital occurs at M-C and then again at M'-C'', no ? >When you say " *entirely granting* the point that >the latter cannot be *sufficient* for the existence of surplus value >because of the latter's dual origin in the production of new value." what >does "the latter" refer to ? "Targetted price-value disparities " ? Gil:Oops. The first "the latter" refers to the phrase "at least targeted price-value disparities" and the second "the latter" refers to "surplus value." ^^^^^ CB: I believe I follow now ^^^^^ >I'm trying to get this still. What are targetted price-value disparities ? I'm making a distinction here between *general* disparities between commodity values and their respective prices, treated by Marx on pp 263-264, and disparities between the price and value of a specific commodity or type of commodity. ^^^^^ CB: Got it ^^^^^^ > >This point is more than just a logical issue, but to keep things focused >I'll stick with the logical point for now: if you establish that condition >A is not *sufficient* for condition B, you have not validly established >that A is "incidental" to B, since the possibility remains that condition A >is *necessary* for condition B. Marx never addresses the latter possibility >one way or the other in his Chapter 5 argument. >CB: Are you saying that "price-value disparities might be both necessary and >sufficient for surplus-value ? Sorry if I am not quite following the >reasoning. No, I'm saying that Marx's Chapter 5 argument demonstrates the claim that "price-value disparities are not sufficient to explain the existence of surplus value." But he makes no demonstration one way or the other concerning the claim "price-value disparities are not necessary for the existence of surplus value," leaving open the possibility that they *might* be necessary, at least under some conditions. Since no claim has been made about necessity, one cannot validly infer that price-value disparities are "incidental" to the existence of surplus value, as Marx does in the conclusion of Chapter 5. If A is necessary for B, then it is certainly not "incidental" to B, whether or not it's sufficient for B. ^^^^^^^ CB: OK ,so Marx says and demonstrates that they are not sufficient, but doesn't address whether they are necessary, so they might be necessary. To say price-value disparities are a necessary condition of surplus-value would be to say surplus value implies ( in the sense of modus ponens) price-value disparities, correct ? Not price-value disparities, not surplus value. And in such a case , we would not say that price-value disparities are incidental to surplus-value. Is that what you are saying ? OK let me find where you are referring to Chapter 5. Charles
