Juriaan, thanks for your comments on my post, which were thoughtful and though-provoking as usual. Some responses below.
1. I am not arguing that “what Marx said is true”. I am trying to understand the logical structure of Marx’s theory as best I can. Because the main criticism of Marx’s theory to date has been a *logical *criticism – that Marx’s theory of prices of production is *logically inconsistent*. In order to be able to fairly and properly evaluate the logical consistency of Marx’s theory, we must first understand the logical structure of his theory, as he intended. Otherwise, we run the risk of blaming Marx for a logical contradiction in a theory that was not his own (which I think is what has happened). I am glad that you think that what I say about Marx’s theory is what Marx himself said; that is what I am trying to do. Not as the “truth”, but as what Marx said. 2. When I say that in Marx’s theory the total amount of surplus-value is determined prior to its division into individual parts, I mean a *logical*priority. The logical priority of the total surplus-value follows from the basic assumptions of Marx’s labor theory of value and surplus-value.: (1) all the different forms of surplus-value *come from the same source* – surplus labor; (2) the individual parts of surplus-value also depend on other specific factors, besides surplus labor; therefore, the individual parts are theorized *after *the prior determination of the total surplus-value by surplus labor; (3) the determination of each of the individual parts is based on the premise of the predetermined total amount of surplus-value, and thus does not change as a result of its subsequent division. If (3) is what you mean by “ontological priority” (as it seems to be), then yes, Marx’s theory assumes the ontological priority of the total surplus-value as determined by the total surplus labor. 3. The important point about the average rate of profit needs to be clarified. When I said that “the average rate of profit belongs to competition”, I meant (following Marx and Heinrich) the full analysis of the average rate of profit and prices of production (not just the determination of the average rate of profit). You are very right that the average rate of profit is itself determined by the aggregate ratio of the total surplus-value to the total capital invested, and thus could be interpreted in this sense as belonging to capital in general. However, the average rate of profit is then taken as given in the subsequent theory of prices of production, and in *this* sense belongs to competition. So more precisely, the average rate of profit is the “connecting link” (as Marx put it) between capital in general and competition. Thus the average rate of profit does not signify a “breakdown” of the logical structure of capital in general and competition (as Heinrich argues), but rather is the key transition between them. 4. Engels’ sequence in Volume 3 is Marx’s sequence. The sequence of the parts in Engels’ Volume 3 is the same as the sequence of the chapters in Marx’s *Manuscript of 1863-65*. Engels changed Marx’s chapters into parts and Marx’s sections of chapters into chapters; but the sequence is exactly the same. Comradely, Fred On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Jurriaan Bendien <[email protected] > wrote: > It is difficult to disagree with Fred Moseley’s literal interpretation of > Marx, insofar as it is only an exact word-for-word repetition of what Marx > himself already says. Often he gives the impression that his chief argument > is “what Marx says is true, because what Marx says is true.” > > > > It never becomes really clear though from his imitation whether his > “levels of abstraction” refer only to an epistemic or methodological order > of assumptions, or whether they represent an ontological claim about > reality. And that is the more substantive issue. > > > > If the total mass of surplus value created by workers in production is > “fixed” before its distribution, this “fix” could be a methodological > assumption in model building, or it could be an ontological claim (along > the lines of: no more surplus value is distributed, than that which is > produced). If it is an ontological claim, we would have to define exactly > what that claim operationally means. > > > > Supposing that it is true, that the total mass of surplus value is already > fixed before it is distributed, then, logically – if you assume total > product prices equal total product values - the average rate of producers’ > profit on total production capital is also fixed already prior to > distribution. That is, a relationship already exists between total surplus > value produced and total capital employed, prior to distribution, which > gives the average. > > > > In that case, Fred Moseley’s story about “levels of abstraction” must be > wrong. It is not true, in that case, that the average producer’s profit > rate appears only “in competition”, whatever that means, because that > average is already given by the relationship between a prior mass of > surplus-value and the total production capital employed. > > > > I think myself that when Marx assumes theoretically that a given quantity > of newly produced surplus value is available for distribution, this is just > a simplifying assumption. If you know anything about the complexity of the > relationship between values and prices in the real world, then you know > that the real relationship between values and prices is only approximate > and often “messy”. In the abstract model, all these complexities are > disregarded, and an order of procedure is adopted. > > > > It is true, that Marx’s theory does require a systematic relationship > between product-values and product-prices, but the relationship need not be > an exact one, and in fact (if you know anything about econometrics) it > cannot be an exact one. > > > > I differ with regard to Fred Moseley’s original refinement about “levels > of abstraction” (whatever it means) since for Marx’, “total capital” and > “many capitals” co-exist and interact all the time, and they do not exist > at a different “level of abstraction”. That is the whole point of a > dialectical analysis: the whole and the parts co-exist and mutually > influence each other, and they are understood within one unitary > theoretical framework. > > > > It is merely that conventional economists distinguish between > micro-economics and macro-economics, and postulate micro laws which do not > exist at the macro level, and vice versa. In the transformation problem > literature, there is also a lot of conceptual huffing and puffing about > whether certain variables are given magnitudes, or whether they are > inferred magnitudes. > > > > We should, of course, care to distinguish between “society’s total > capital” (total social capital), “society’s production capital”, and the > concept of “capital in general”. They do not all mean the same thing. > > > > In Marx’s analysis, some magnitudes are held constant, in order to examine > the effect of variation in other magnitudes. Yet Marx could have started > and finished his reasoning in many different ways, and indeed Engels’s > sequence for the manuscripts of Capital Vol. 3 represents only one > interpretation of the sequence. > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
