# [OPE-L:8192] Re: Re: Re: direct and indirect causes of surplus-value

From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 12:27:04 EST

```re 8182

>On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, gerald_a_levy wrote:
>
>>  Re Fred's [8159]:
>>
>>  > Surplus-value can only be produced by wage-labor.
>>
>>  This is an important area of agreement.
>>
>>  > But then in Chapter 7, the magnitude of surplus-value is explained - by
>>  > the magnitude of surplus labor.  The class relation by itself does not
>>  > explain the magnitude of surplus-value.  The magnitude of surplus-value
>>  > can only be explained by the further theory presented in Chapter 7, which
>>  > is summarized by the above equation.
>>
>>  As we've discussed before,  the magnitude of surplus-value can be
>>  determined with the equation S = m (L - Ln) subject to certain *assumptions*
>>  ("givens"); once the assumptions are dropped (i.e. when what has been
>>  posited initially as given is no longer given but is systematically explored
>>  and developed),  then the calculation of magnitude becomes more complex.
>>
>>  In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>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.
>
>Fred

For none of the magnitudes to change, the following has to be true:

(1)"The value transferred to the product by constant capital is then
given, not as the labour time embodied in its components, but as the
labour time represented by the money paid for it, being its money
price multiplied by the value of money or divided by the monetary
expression of labor time" (Alan Freeman, Alejandro Ramos, Fred M).

(2)if this is so, Marx's talk of double divergence has to be--as
Allin long ago recognized, and I came to understand much
later--gibberish and logically incoherent and should in effect be
ignored.

Rakesh

ps the above was already stated in this old post:

X-Sender: rakeshb@rakeshb.pobox.stanford.edu
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 09:06:46 -0800
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
From: Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@Stanford.EDU>
Subject: [OPE-L:6360] Re: Re: recent science and  society and Fred M's
interpretation