[ show plain text ]
At 14:20 22/09/00 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote:
>> _____________________Fred, basically your S is equal to (m.L - V), i.e. S =
>> (m.L - V), where according to you, you know your L and V but not m. Thus your
>> S is neither known in absolute terms nor to any degree of "proposnality".
>> is so simple that i cannot believe I have to explain it to you so many times.
>Ajit, I am afraid that you haven't explained it even once yet. I have
>argued that Marx's theory concludes that the magnitude of surplus-value is
>proportional to surplus labor-time, with m as the factor of
>proportionality (i.e. S = m Ls). Why isn't this determination up to a
>factor of proportionality?
If Ajit is right in his presentation of your fomula as
S= (m.L - V) then
S is not a linear function of m which is what one needs for
determination up to a constant of proportionality. For that to
be true one would need a formula of the form
S = m(F)
where F was some formula
If we derive an appropriate F from your formula we get
F = m.L - V/m
What is the term V/m supposed to be?
It is the quantity of money laid out in variable capital divided
by the value of money. In other words, it is, assuming no workers
savings, the labour content of the real wage.
>From Ajits viewpoint this is fair enough, since this is in line
roughly speaking with the Sraffian treatment. From your point of
view though it is a problem, since it undermines your assertions
that the givens are all in terms of money. Here we have a given
that is in terms of labour content.
Paul Cockshott (email@example.com)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT