File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/94-08-28.000, message 130


Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 00:18:43 +1000
From: Steve.Keen-AT-unsw.EDU.AU
Subject: Re: re:? for Steve


Dear Donna,
I have discussed this before, but I don't record the chronology of my posts.
So I'll attempt a brief reply to your questions:

"Marx's concept of extra surplus value is based on the fact that capitals
with the most efficient means of production are beneficiaries of value
transfer, which is in fact what motivates the productivity revolutions
characteristic of the capitalist mode of production.  But this transfer
operates at the level of many capitals.  So isn't the argument that fixed
capital or dead labor creates value true only at the level of capitalist
appearances--but not for capital as a whole?"

The theory I have put forward explains *normal* surplus. not "extra surplus"--
by which I presume you mean a rate of surplus over and above that enjoyed 
by the average capitalists. Thus it applies at the level of individual firms
as well as at the level of capital as a whole.

To provide a quotation from Marx which supports the view that this explanation
explains normal surplus--and at the level of the individual firm--consider
the following:

"For the capitalist as buyer paid for each commodity ... its full value. He then 
did what is done by every purchaser of commodities; he consumed their use-value."
(Capital Vol. 1 p. 189, Progress Press)

I could elaborate, and provide additional similar comments; but take the above
as representative.

As for an explanation of "extra surplus", that is a question for evolutionary
and dynamic analysis--rather a long way down the track from trying to establish
a basic theory of value.

Your second question:

"Also, when you argue that fixed capital is productive of surpluses, do you 
mean productive of use-values or value--that it transfers more than its 
own value?"

I mean the latter: it transfers more than its value. While that assertion looks
bizarre from the perspective of a labor theory of value, it is the only logical
conclusion from applying Marx's use-value/exchange-value analysis. On that front,
see my JHET 1993 Vol 15 No.2 paper. For more detail, you would need to consult
the thesis I've posted to the ftp site.

Cheers,
Steve Keen


     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005