[OPE-L] Marx on the equalisation of rates of surplus value

[Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Rakesh,

I'm sorry but I'll stick by what I said. Gary Mongiovi had written:

> Hi. Solow criticized the assumption of equal rates of SV, on the ground
> that there is no mechanism that can bring about that equalization. He
> contrasted that case with the equalization of profit rates, which, in the
> absence of impediments to the movement of capital, is brought about by
> intersectoral capital flows.

In your post "Sraffa's Contribution to Marxian Political Economy" dated 27
February you replied that:

"Solow's criticism is trivial, but I suppose his every utterance must be
taken seriously.  Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than
convenience of calculation in his transformation. He also assumes in his
calculations that the value transferred from the used up means of
production is the same as the value of the money costs of the used up
means of production. Both assumptions are false, and Marx knows it. But it
also matters not to  the logic of his demonstration of why and how it is
concealed that price remains a function of value."

There you have it: you said "Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other
than convenience of calculation in his transformation."

What I've suggested is that Marx didn't assume "equalized s/v for no reason
other than convenience of calculation", i.e. he had another reason, namely
he believed that differences in s/v would as a long-term tendency be
"balanced out by real or imaginary (conventional) grounds of
compensation" and more specifically by competition among workers
and labour mobility.

You can of course say that "And I did not say that", but you
did say it: "Marx assumes equalized s/v for no reason other than
convenience of calculation in his transformation." It's there in black
and white.

However what's important here is not you denying what you previously
said, but Solow's criticism. Solow argues "there is no mechanism that
can bring about that equalization". But Marx argues that there is, namely
competition among workers, labour mobility and (presumably)
juridical conventions or arbitrage - this point taken up by
Michio Morishima among others.

The issue is discussed in some detail by John Weeks in his book
"Capital and exploitation", Chapter 3, Section A., where he
criticizes Morishima: "One cannot consider the equalisation
of either profits or wages across capitals unless one has a prior
explanation of to what level equalization will gravitate" (p. 68).
He adds in a note that "It is a wellknown empirical
generalisation for industrial capitalist countries that the
variance in wage rates among industries increases in periods
of "boom" and decreases when accumulation slows or becomes
negative" (ibid.).

Jurriaan