From: glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 13:55:49 EDT
Re Fred's [7805]: > Jerry, the magnitude of s that is taken as given in Volume 3 has > already been determined in Volume 1. It does not have to be > determined later; it has already been determined, by the quantity > of surplus labor. Do you see what I mean? Fred, the determination of the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume One was made under the *assumption* that the entire surplus-value created in production would be actualized in exchange. Therefore the magnitude of surplus-value in Volume Three has not been determined except for the *special case* where the entire surplus-value is actualized. In other words, the magnitude of s in Volume 3 will equal the magnitude that is given in Volume One *if any only if* the reality corresponds to this restrictive assumption. But, one would think that during the contractionary phase of the trade cycle this assumption will _not_ hold as there are unsold inventories of commodities. Thus, if we are going to talk about the magnitude of surplus-value during periods of crisis then this restrictive assumption must be dropped. Do you see what I mean? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 22 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT