[OPE-L:4497] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what is Volume 1 about?

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Sat Nov 11 2000 - 14:10:59 EST

Part of the confusion results from how c, v and s take on different 
meanings in the determination and the resolution of value.

In the determination of value, we have the value of means of 
production consumed (c) plus the new value value added [v (1 + s/v)].

c +  v(1 + s/v) => C

New value added here merely represents the direct labor time embodied 
in the output. In short we have indirect and direct labor time.

However, the value of a commodity (C) is monetarily resolved into 
cost price (c + v) and surplus value (s) in its many forms: profit, 
rent, interest, etc.

C => (c+v) + s

Marx substitutes

C=> k + s

The trick of the complete transformation problem  is that we are not 
changing the determination of value; the indirect (value of the 
consumed means of production) and direct labor (new value added) 
remains unchanged-- hence, C has to be constant.

But we are changing how C (total price as the monetary expression of 
that value) is resolved into its monetary components upon the 
transformation of the inputs.

That is, by changing cost price we are changing the balance between k 
and s, without changing C, that is total value or price.

The point is that however we change k (which is paid indirect and 
direct labor), s will will always remains the unpaid part of C.

That is, it is perfectly possible to change the magnitudes of the 
resolved components of total commodity value ( k and s), without in 
any way implying that surplus value does not have its origins 
entirely in unpaid labor.

Surplus value does not have to remain invariant in the complete 
transformation in order for the the theory of exploitation to hold.

All the best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST