[OPE-L:8204] Re: Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 23:40:13 EST

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:

> Re Fred's [8182]:
> > 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.
> If the commodity product is not sold then a portion of the surplus-value
> that was presumed/ assumed to exist exiting  production does not become
> actualized and the magnitude of  S is thereby diminished.  The
> equation S = m (L-Ln), thus, can tell us the magnitude of surplus-value *if
> and only if* all of the surplus value is realized/actualized; if that is not
> the
> case then we can't say what the magnitude of C and V will be in the next
> period of production since the movement C-M' did not yield as much
> S and M as presumed.
> In solidarity, Jerry

Jerry, I meant that the magnitudes of C, V, and S do not change IN VOLUME
3 OF CAPITAL, in which it is assumed that there is no realization problem,
in order to examine capitalism in its "pure state".  


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 00:00:01 EST