From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 13:46:39 EDT
Hi Jerry and colleagues Regarding the absence of the 4th subcase I do not think it has any profound consequences. I am just puzzled by the fact that the subcase is not analysed given the detailled way Marx always proceeds. Regarding Jerry´s suggestion to look elsewhere, a possible previous analyses made by Marx which may have suggested to him that it was unnecessary to develop the case in Chapter III, I must say this: all the references Marx makes at the beggining of the chapter do not have a bearing on the point I am making. The first reference (book II, chapter XVI) has to do with the number of turnovers. Here Marx is reminding us that the formula for the rate od profit he is going to use in the present chapter is valid for one turnover period only. The second reference (Book I, chapter X) has to with the extra profits obtained by a more efficient capitalist whose products having an individual value below the social value can nonetheless be sold at a price near the social, thereby obtaining extra profits. This greater efficiency comes from a higher productivity of labor which in the present chapter he is considering constant. (This is a possible source of confusion because along the chapter he refers to the consequences of his examples in terms of rising or declining productivities. However, these are consequences of assuming changes in the value composition of capital which for him "always express a definite degree of labor productivity" p.51: International Publishers, 1967). Regarding working day, intensity and wages "the same applies" p.51. He is considering them as constants except when as a result of the very examples that are given it is necessary to take into account changes in either the working day, intensity or wages to make the examples coherent with the initial assumptions. But these are consequences of the examples. It does not seem to me that this could have made superfluous the case I think is missing. Paulo gerald_a_levy wrote: > Paolo wrote: > p´1 = (s´1/s´)(C/C1)p´, > > where p´1=rate of profit modified > > s´1=rate of surplus value modified > > s´=original rate of surplus value > > C=total capital > > C1=total capital modified > > p´=original rate of profit Suppose, for the sake of > discussion, that we accepted the aboveas valid. Does it suggest any > insights that weren't developedelsewhere by Marx? Does it have any > implications for subjectsthat are analysed later by Marx or are > "post-Capital" topics? > The very motivation of that chapter suggests > to me that whaever case> there was it was supposed to be analysed > there. Marx in fact analyses> cases that are unlikely to occur (as he > himself says it). What special> reason would have made him omit that > one case? It is just not there. I'm not convinced that this case was > "supposed" to be there(see excerpt below from a prior post). Nor do I > comprehendyet the significance for you of it not being there (see > above). In solidarity, Jerry > I think, though, that one should also > ask whether he didn't> discuss the sub-case you mention because he > felt that he had> already discussed that subject elsewhere. He seems > to say as> much early on in Ch. 3: "The same applies to the > remaining> three factors:*length of working day, intensity of labour, > and wages.*> Their influenceon the mass and rate of surplus-value > was> developed in detail inVolume 1 [Chapter 17]...." (Ibid, p. 143).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT