Part of the confusion results from how c, v and s take on different meanings in the determination and the resolution of value. In the determination of value, we have the value of means of production consumed (c) plus the new value value added [v (1 + s/v)]. c + v(1 + s/v) => C New value added here merely represents the direct labor time embodied in the output. In short we have indirect and direct labor time. However, the value of a commodity (C) is monetarily resolved into cost price (c + v) and surplus value (s) in its many forms: profit, rent, interest, etc. C => (c+v) + s Marx substitutes C=> k + s The trick of the complete transformation problem is that we are not changing the determination of value; the indirect (value of the consumed means of production) and direct labor (new value added) remains unchanged-- hence, C has to be constant. But we are changing how C (total price as the monetary expression of that value) is resolved into its monetary components upon the transformation of the inputs. That is, by changing cost price we are changing the balance between k and s, without changing C, that is total value or price. The point is that however we change k (which is paid indirect and direct labor), s will will always remains the unpaid part of C. That is, it is perfectly possible to change the magnitudes of the resolved components of total commodity value ( k and s), without in any way implying that surplus value does not have its origins entirely in unpaid labor. Surplus value does not have to remain invariant in the complete transformation in order for the the theory of exploitation to hold. All the best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST