[OPE-L:8182] Re: Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 15 2002 - 22:16:23 EST

On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:

> Re Fred's [8159]:
> > Surplus-value can only be produced by wage-labor.
> This is an important area of agreement.
> > But then in Chapter 7, the magnitude of surplus-value is explained - by
> > the magnitude of surplus labor.  The class relation by itself does not
> > explain the magnitude of surplus-value.  The magnitude of surplus-value
> > can only be explained by the further theory presented in Chapter 7, which
> > is summarized by the above equation.
> As we've discussed before,  the magnitude of surplus-value can be
> determined with the equation S = m (L - Ln) subject to certain *assumptions*
> ("givens"); once the assumptions are dropped (i.e. when what has been
> posited initially as given is no longer given but is systematically explored
> and developed),  then the calculation of magnitude becomes more complex.
> In solidarity, Jerry

Jerry, the subsequent determination of constant capital and variable
capital does not change their magnitudes.  Rather, the given magnitudes
(which remain unchanged) are explained at a later stage of the
theory.  And the subsequent determination of C and V also does not change
the basic equation

	S = m (L - Ln)

Nor do any of the magnitudes in this equation change.  What changes is a
more complete explanation of the initial givens.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 17 2002 - 00:00:00 EST