me:
I don't know exactly what's meant by "coexisting on the same level."
 Surplus-value and profit/interest/rent do not exist on the same level
 in our minds and in Marx's order of presentation in CAPITAL.

ML:
 They coexist on the same level for you if you think there is a real
transformation process via the mobility of capitals whereby values are
transformed into prices of production; that is inconceivable for inner
essences and surface forms.

I don't think that the "transformation" of values to prices of
production  (or of SV to profit/interest/rent) occurs due to the
mobility of capital. (Rather, the special case where values = POPs
applies only when such mobility doesn't exist -- or if the rate of
surplus-value = 0 or if the OCC is the same in all sectors, etc.) But
each commodity has a   price (and a POP) and also has a certain
quantum of value (which might equal zero). In my earlier language,
each commodity has differing characteristics and shared
characteristics.

The shared characteristics -- values -- are relevant at the
macrosocietal level. This refers to Marx's two main "conservation
principles," i.e., that (1) the sum of all values (netted to avoid
double-counting) equals the sum of all prices (ditto); and (2) the sum
of all surplus-values equals the sum of all profit/interest/rent.
These rules apply only when the units on both sides of each equation
are the same.

They also should be read from left to right, with the sum of (surplus)
values determining the sum of (surplus) prices. This reading is based
on two further principles: (1) in a commodity-producing society, value
can only be produced by labor (though value can be redistributed in
other ways); and (2) in the same kind of society, surplus-value only
arises from the exertion of surplus-labor.

Reference to the order of presentation isn't
sufficient to distinguish these levels because one can fall back on the old
'successive approximations' canard.

I don't see why "successive approximations" is a canard. (It might be
a poulet, after all.) The idea that in CAPITAL Marx works steadily
from a high level of abstraction toward a lower one is not that
different from the "successive approximations" view.
--
Jim Devine / "Because things are the way they are, things will not
stay the way they are." -- Bertolt Brecht

Reply via email to