Re: (OPE-L) Re: Subcase missing on Chapter 3, Vol III

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 15:08:09 EDT

gerald_a_levy wrote:

> The third case under "'s' constant'" is:  "s' and v constant, c and
> therefore also C variable" (Penguin ed., p. 152-153; International ed.,
> pp. 59-60).   Subject to the prior assumptions in the chapter (including
> the assumptions that the length of the working day, the intensity of labor,
> and wages remain constant) the case where v is constant implies that s' is
> constant hence the 'v constant' case could be subsumed under the
> 's constant' section.
> Isn't this the 'missing' subcase that you were wondering about? Or,
> is there some aspect to your question that I have missed?

Jerry, if you recall, Marx opens the chapter saying he is going to pursue a
purely mathematical analysis. So let us be purely mathematical and impose the
following possibility:
s variable
v constant
C variable hrough variations in c
You are right to mention the working day, intensity of labor and wages. Yet we
do not need to mantain them constant. In fact, since v is constant s can vary
only if the lenght of the working day, the intensity of labor or the wages
vary. But once we allow for anyone of these factors determining the rate of
surplus valuae to vary we have the subcase stated above whose formula is:
l1 = (m1/m)(C/C1)l,
that is,  the rate of profit modified will depend on the ratio between the
modified and the previous rate of surplus value and on the ratio between C and
C1. This formula did not appear before! Should it not be considered as an
independent case?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 18 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT