From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Fri Oct 17 2003 - 14:32:57 EDT
I am sorry for the portuguese typos in my formula. I had to translate
the variables into portuguese for a handout given to the students and
then kept l instead of p and m instead of s. The formula is correct as
it stands; I am just substituting the letters:
pī1 = (sī1/sī)(C/C1)pī,
where pī1=rate of profit modified
sī1=rate of surplus value modified
sī=original rate of surplus value
C=total capital
C1=total capital modified
pī=original rate of profit
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.
Paulo
gerald_a_levy wrote:
> Paolo wrote: >>> Jerry, if you recall, Marx opens the chapter saying
> he is going to pursue a purely mathematical analysis. So let us be
> purely mathematical and impose the following possibility:
> sī variable
> v constant
> C variable through variations in c
> You are right to mention the working day, intensity of labor and
> wages. Yet we do not need to maintain them constant. In fact, since v
> is constant sī can vary only if the length of the working day, the
> intensity of labor or the wages vary. But once we allow for anyone of
> these factors determining the rate of surplus value to vary we have
> the subcase stated above whose formula is:
> l1 = (mī1/mī)(C/C1)l,
> that is, the rate of profit modified will depend on the ratio between
> the modified and the previous rate of surplus value and on the ratio
> between C and C1. This formula did not appear before! Should it not be
> considered as an independent case? <<< Hi again Paolo. You raise
> different issues: I.) you ask: why didn't Marx consider the case of v
> constant and s and Cvariable in Vol. 3, Ch. 3? The above question is,
> of course, related to another question you ask:_should_ he have
> considered that as an independent case in Vol. 3,Ch. 3? I consider it
> highly unlikely that the overlooked the case you mention"by
> mistake". There are other possibilities: to begin with, note
> thefootnote at the end of this chapter by Engels in which he points
> out thatthe "manuscript also contains further and very detailed
> calculations....I have refrained from reproducing this material, since
> it is of littleimportance for the immediate aim of this
> book....(Penguin ed., p. 162).So one line of inquiry might involve a
> re-look at the original drafts todetermine _what exactly_ was not
> included for publication from thischapter. I think, though, that one
> should also ask whether he didn'tdiscuss the sub-case you mention
> because he felt that he hadalready discussed that subject elsewhere.
> He seems to say as muchearly 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).
> There is also an indicationthat at least one of these possibilities
> would be explored more concretelyin a separate book to be written
> _after Capital_: thus, in Vol. 3, Ch. 14,Section 3 he indicated that
> a "reduction of wages below their value ..."has its place in an
> account of competition, which is not dealt with inthis work" (Ibid, p.
> 342). II.) You ask me to respond to the formula that you propose
> above. Before I do that, I would like to see that formula developed
> moreand, in particular, made symbolically more consistent with
> theother formulas in that chapter. [btw, I assume that the beginning
> of that formula was a typo and thatwhere you wrote '1' (upper-case)
> you intended to write "p'".] In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT