On Sun, 8 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote: > Subject: [OPE-L:4006] Re: Re: Re: Surplus value or surplus argument? > > When I said that surplus value is proportional to necessary labor, I meant > that in the labor theory of value the ratio S/V is taken as constant. Do you mean (as I take from your next sentence) that the ratio S/V is taken as constant ACROSS INDUSTRIES? If so, I don't see this as a necessary assumption (see more on this below). But in any case, the constancy of the rate of surplus-value across industries does not imply that surplus-value is proportional to NECESSARY labor. Surplus-value is proportional to SURPLUS labor. Surplus-value would be proportional to necessary only if the rate of surplus-value (S/V) were = 1. So I am still puzzled about why you say that surplus-value is proportional to necessary labor. > If your key equation is instead > > S= m.L - V > > then I don't see how you can maintain a constant rate of surplus value > across industries. Therefore if this equation is made pivotal, I think you > have a rather different theory to the one Marx set out. The equation S = mL - V is an equation for the total economy as a whole, not for individual industries. For the analysis of the total economy, it doesn't really matter whether the rate of surplus-value is constant or not. But just to clarify, could you please explain more why you think that this equation makes it difficult to "maintain a constant rate of surplus-value across industries." And my main point remains: according to my interpretation, surplus-value is proportional to surplus labor. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST