15
let it seems to me she was not able to put matters right
either, although she clearly realised that it all was
a question of realisation of the surplus.
The truth is that the department scheme in the form presented
by Marx is not adequate for an analysis of extended reproduction.
We get here a new variable, the net addition to capital,
and that is at the same time a part of constant capital
and a part of the surplus. ( Since Marx considered also
an increase of "goods in process" , a part of the wages,too,
is at the same time part of the surplus ).
The ambiguity is resolved by considering successive periods,
the accumulation being part of the surplus in one, and part
of the constant capital in the next period. The trouble is,
however, that by merely shifting a part of surplus within
one department one neglects the interdependence between the
two departments, because the surplus in each will depend on
what happens in the other department. Marx's practice of
working with given exploitation rates and given capital
structure ( in addition also given ratio ofcapitalisation
to surplus ) can not be kept up so that quaint proportions
in at least one of the departments result.
The reason for the trouble is that Marx does not heed the
difference between surplus produced and surplus realised
in this context - a distinction which is due to him and
which represents a deep insight of lasting importance.
He tries to impose given exploitation rates on a scheme
without realising that by the nature of the circuit
implied it is surplus realised which it reveals.