Re: [OPE-L] accumulation of capital and the working class - actual non existence of variable capital

From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2008 - 20:19:57 EST

Next message: Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox"
Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox"
In reply to: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] accumulation of capital and the working class - actual non existence of variable capital"
Next in thread: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] accumulation of capital and the working class - actual non existence of variable capital"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

on 2008-01-11 21:59 Jerry Levy wrote:
> Yes.  The class relations specific to capitalism are embedded
> in the 1st formula and obscured in the 2nd one.
>

Please elaborate what you mean. The class relation "embedded" in either
formula is the amount of surplus labour. That is quite explicit.

//Dave Z

Next message: Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox"
Previous message: Philip Dunn: "Re: [OPE-L] The lump of surplus value fallacy and the Moseley paradox"
In reply to: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] accumulation of capital and the working class - actual non existence of variable capital"
Next in thread: Jerry Levy: "Re: [OPE-L] accumulation of capital and the working class - actual non existence of variable capital"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST