[OPE-L:4300] Re: Mandel vs. Baran-Sweezy

Alejandro Valle Baez (valle@servidor.dgsca.unam.mx)
Fri, 7 Mar 1997 08:04:42 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 aramos@aramos.bo wrote:

> In ope-l 4267 Alejandro Valle-Baeza wrote:
> > The critic of Mandel to this is simple and (I think) correct:
> >
> > S(t+1)/S(t)=L(t+1)/L(t) s(t+1)/s(t)
> > where S(t) is surplus value in time t
> > L(t) is labor force in time t
> > s(t) rate of surplus value in t, defined by: S(t)/L(t)
> Alejandro Ramos:
> Thanks to Alejandro Valle for his reply. I ask:
> 1. L(t) seems *variable capital*, not total living labor-force, as
> suggested by the notation "L". Is it true? Strictly speaking, if these
> magnitudes are measured in labor-time L(t) would be *necessary
> labor* instead of *variable capital*.
This would be true if rate of surplus value would be defined, as Marx did,
However to disccuss the dinamic limit of surplus value it is useful to
define rate of surplus value by= S(t)/L(t) where L(t) is total living
labor. I know the critic of Marx to this definition, but I think such a
critic is not aplicable to all problems.

> 2. I would write: S(t+1)/S(t)=[L(t+1)/L(t)]*[s(t+1)/s(t)]
> Is this right?
I do not understand the question here.

> 3. Is this equation in Mandel's articles. Are these magnitudes
> measured in labor-time? What does Mandel say about money-magnitudes?

No, Mandel, until I know, did not use equations in his articles. I
translated his arguments ("tradutore traitore" say Italians). In this
article Mandel did not take care of differences bewteen labor-time and
money magnitudes. I belive that him, in general, was not worried by such

> > Alejandro Ramos M.
> 3.3.97