[OPE-L:5178] the transfer and depreciation of the value of means of production

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Steve K's [OPE-L:5177]:

 

Didn't we discuss the _Grundrisse_ quote, on a

long deceased list, over 5 years ago?  At the time

didn't John E and you exchange long posts full of

numerical illustrations about this? What did you

find unsatisfactory with John's answers? I recall

that someone else, whose name I will not mention,

engaged you in an extended discussion of that

quote and your perspective as well.

 

In any event, before you *jump to conclusions*

(like the ones that appear below), let's consider

the quote *in context*.

 

The quote is:

 

"Here, it must be assumed (and this was not

assumed above) that the use value of the machine

is significantly greater than its value, i.e. that

its depreciation in the service of production is

not proportional to its effect in increasing production"

(_Collected Works_, Vol. 28, p. 309).

 

Note that he begins the sentence with "Here". Yet,

you have made no attempt to put that quote in the

context of what "Here" means. See both the

beginning of the paragraph and the several paragraphs

beforehand in which "This example" is discussed.

 

Note, then, what *follows* your quote: "So,

assume, as above, a printing press: the first a

printing press operated manually and the second

a *self-acting* printing press" (Ibid) and the

example that then follows.

 

In what follows (and was written beforehand), I

see no support for your interpretation. If you think

that this section of the _Grundrisse_ supports

your interpretation that it seems to me that you have

to show that the examples that Marx gives

(especially the examples after the quote you

cited) lend credence to your interpretation.

 

(NB: as the magnitude of use-value can not be

measured as in marginalist theory by the

artificial measure of "utils",  what Marx writes in

the quote above is confusing. I.e. there *is no way

of determining* whether the "use value of the

machine is significantly greater than its value").

 

Perhaps what we need to do is discuss the difference

between *individual and social value*. The subject of

*moral depreciation* (of which we have had *lengthy*

discussions on this list) also comes to mind. The

*release and tying-up of capital* (discussed in

Volume 3, Ch. 6, section 2) might also be brought to

bear on the discussion.

 

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

 

If your question, however,  boils down to the following:

isn't the postulate that there is an increase in

use-value and value transferred to the commodity

over and above the value of the means of production

inconsistent with Marx's perspectives on the creation

of surplus-value? ... then I will offer an answer.

 

Marx does not claim here or elsewhere that the value

transferred to output by means of production is

greater than the *social value* of the means of

production. He only claims that the value transferred

by the means of production is equal to *or less than*

(with moral depreciation, the latter), the value of the

means of production.

 

Yet, the transfer of value to output from the

means of production *can* increase. This would

not be the case if we hold fast to the assumption

that the means of production depreciate in a linear

and uniform manner, as with straight-line

depreciation.

 

With straight line depreciation if an element of

constant fixed capital depreciates fully over a five

year period (assuming no moral depreciation), then

if the value of the fixed capital is 100 the *transfer

of value* would take the following form:

 

Year                            Transfer of Value

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

1                                        20

2                                        20

3                                        20

4                                        20

5                                        20

Total:                                 100

 

Yet, there is nothing in Marx's conception of

value that requires that the transfer of value

happens in a linear way. To the extent that

straight-line depreciation is assumed in most

of Marx's numerical examples, I think it represents

only a *simplifying assumption* which can be dropped

at a later stage of analysis -- as I suggest below.

 

Here's another example where the transfer of value

happens in a *non-linear* way:

 

Year                       Transfer of Value

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

1                                  10

2                                  20

3                                  30

4                                  10

5                                  30

Total:                           100

 

Notice that there is an *increase* in the *annual

rate* of value transferred in Years 2 and 3, followed

by a *decrease* in the value transferred in Year 4,

followed by an *increase* in the value transferred in

Year 5.

 

Of course, this is a hypothetical illustration (as are

many of Marx's other examples), but there is

*nothing* inconsistent with the 2nd example *if*

the transfer of value can be thought of as happening

unevenly (in a non-linear form) in a temporalist

setting.

 

Thus, it can *appear* that the value transferred by

the means of production is greater than the value of

the means of production but if one views this

process in a temporal setting  there can

be uneven annual transfers of value where

there are some periods when the value transferred increases even where the total value transferred

remains equal to (or less than) the value of the

means of production.

 

I think that the above can also be connected to the

subject of the release and tying-up of constant

fixed capital.

 

In solidarity, Jerry

 

PS: we did have some recent discussions on this

list about the world economic crisis, including the

situation in Japan and S. Asia as well as the

prospects for a downturn in the US economy. You

were here, so you should remember. In any event,

I haven't see more insightful discussions on that

subject among Marxists on any other list.

 

PPS: the question of *where*  an analysis of

value as a non-linear and temporal process should

be placed is not discussed above, but I think it depends on the "level of abstraction"  of the

particular subject under investigation.

But what do you and other Marxists make of this statement:

"It also has to be postulated (which was not
done above) that the use-value of the machine significantly
greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the service
of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on
production."(Footnote: *Grundrisse*, op. cit., p. 383.)

That is *precisely* my interpretation of Marx's theory of value: that the use-value of machinery is significantly greater than its exchange-value. Note that I am quoting Marx here. With that one statement, *Marx* contemplates that "means of production create new value". This contemplation is a direct *and accurate* implication of his philosophy. I have yet to have any Marxist economist provide an interpretation of this statement which is consistent with the labour theory of value.