[OPE-L:2026] RE: Re: value-form theories

[P.J.Wells@xxxxxxxxxx]

Mike W wrote


> This assertion of Fred's:
>
> > 3.  But Marx also argued that they key question in a theory of
> capitalism
> > is to explain the determination of the magnitude of the dM.  This point
> is
> > stated very clearly in the following excerpt from the "Results"
> > manuscript:
>
> Is, I submit, not supported by this quote:
> >
> > The fact that the purpose of the process is that x should be
> > transformed into x + dx also POINTS TO THE PATH OUR OWN
> > INVESTIGATION SHOULD TAKE.  The result must be expressed
> > as the FUNCTION OF A VARIABLE QUANTITY,  or be transformed into
> > one during the process.  As a given sum of money, x is a constant
> > from the outset and hence its increment = 0.  In the course of the
> > process, therefore, it must be changed into another amount which
> > contains a variable element.  OUR TASK IS IS TO DISCOVER THIS
> > COMPONENT AND AT THE SAME TIME TO IDENTIFY THE MEDIATIONS BY MEANS
> > OF WHICH A CONSTANT MAGNITUDE BECOMES A VARIABLE ONE.
> > (Capital, vol. 1, Vintage edition, p. 977; emphasis added).
>
> Rather, Marx says quite clearly here that the capitalist system must
> determine (throw up determinations of) the quantity of surplus-value
> (expressed in money). And that we (the investigators) must grasp the
> mediations by which this occurs. That doesn't speak one way or the other
> to
> the necessity for the theory to determine magnitudes - just that it must
> explain how such magnitudes are reproduced in the theoretical object -
> capitalism.
>
	I entirely agree that this is a reasonable *possible* interpretation
of Marx. But I suggest that on the face of it an *equally* possible
interpretation of "The result must be expressed as the function of a
variable quantity..." is what a modern (bur arguably naive) reader might
make of it: namely that Marx was precisely demanding a mathematical model
with quantitative consequences.

	We know that Marx at least dabbled in maths: what stage were his
investigations at when the passage above was drafted? the "x + dx" stuff
suggests that he had begun his reflections on the calculus at the relevant
time -- in which case what reason is there for supposing that he did *not*
intend to demand a quantitative model (a demand which would, of course, not
exclude -- rather, include -- the interpretation Mike argues for)?

	Julian