[OPE-L:5023] Re: Re: Re: Re: double divrgence

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2001 - 20:36:51 EST

>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
>>  >>  Wj = Kvj + svj
>>  >>
>>  >>  Wj: value
>>  >>  Kv: "cost price in value terms"
>>  >>  sv: surplus value
>>  >
>>  >Yes, that's my view.
>>  But Allin that's not correct since it implies
>>  (1) Kvj + svj => Wj
>What's the symbol "=>" supposed to mean?  If it means direction of
>determination than the equation above implies no such thing.

Then if the "Wj=kvj + svj" equation does not represent the left side 
being determined by the right side, what does it represent?

>The _determination_ of value is: value of means of production (other
>than labour-power) plus new labour-time.  Surplus value is the
>residual: new labour-time minus value of labour-power (or at any rate,
>minus labour-time embodied in wage-goods).

If the price of wage goods were to rise partially as a result of 
greater ground rent payments, your surplus value would only be 
diminished by the rise in value alone of the wage goods which had 
resulted from the resort to inferior lands.

So  by your Wj=kvj + svj equation, the sum of surplus value and Kvj 
would now exceed Wj.

One should therefore leave kvj out of any formula for value 
determination or any expression of value and instead employ what is 
implict in your formulation above:

Lmp + Lc = Value {Lc means current labor}

Once total value is so determined,  then surplus value appears as 
another residual: total value, as monetarily expressed, minus cost 

Once surplus value is defined that way--and in your uncorrupted 
quotations from Marx, that's how he defined it--it follows that if we 
are going to modify the cost prices by transforming the inputs, the 
sum of surplus value has to be allowed to change in the opposite 
direction. Which of course yields my set of transformation equations 
in which both equalities are preserved by use of one invariance 
condition. Of course I would only recommend this if we had to accept 
the absurd assumption that inputs and outputs should be transformed 
into identical unit prices of production.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST