[OPE-L:3104] RE: assumptions, assumptions, assumptions

andrew kliman (Andrew_Kliman@msn.com)
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 19:31:18 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

A reply to Jerry's ope-l 3103.

I had written: "For someone who doesn't want to discuss what Marx said about v
= 0, Jerry, you're not doing a very good job of staying away. ... I suggest
we return to the point where *you* broke that discussion off. As I have noted
in recent days, that point was where I claimed that if the whole working day
is appropriated by capital, as Marx assumed at one point, then necessary labor
equals 0 *and* v = 0."

Note that "that discussion" refers to a discussion about what Marx wrote.
Specifically, I was referring to the point *several months ago* when Jerry
broke off discussion of two passages from _Capital_ III. One of them reads:
"in order to produce the same rate of profit, therefore, if the constant
capital set in motion by a worker increases ten-fold, the surplus-labour time
would have to increase ten-fold as well, and very soon the total labour-time,
or even the FULL TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF THE DAY, would not be sufficient, even
if it were ENTIRELY APPROPRIATED BY CAPITAL" (p. 523, Vintage; emphases [which
I do not necessarily consider shouting] are mine).

In ope-l 3103, Jerry stated that he is "claiming now that Marx did not assume
necessary labor or v = 0."

OK. Assuming that the full twenty-four hours of the day are entirely
appropriated by capital, then how is v > 0? Maybe the workers get the 100 in
value that vanishes on New Year's Day :) [see ope-l 3097]?

Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta!

Andrew Kliman