Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:3104]:
> Note that "that discussion" refers to a discussion about what Marx wrote.
> Specifically, I was referring to the point *several months ago* when Jerry
> broke off discussion of two passages from _Capital_ III. One of them reads:
> "in order to produce the same rate of profit, therefore, if the constant
> capital set in motion by a worker increases ten-fold, the surplus-labour time
> would have to increase ten-fold as well, and very soon the total labour-time,
> or even the FULL TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF THE DAY, would not be sufficient, even
> if it were ENTIRELY APPROPRIATED BY CAPITAL" (p. 523, Vintage; emphases
> [which I do not necessarily consider shouting] are mine).
(1) As noted before, I did not break off the discussion a few months back.
(2) My turn to shout: IN NO CONCEIVABLE WAY DOES THE ABOVE QUOTE FROM MARX
INDICATE THAT HE WAS ASSUMING V = O!!!
(a) The sentence before the one above says: "As was shown in Part Three
of this volume, the profit rate decreases in proportion to the
growing accumulation of capital and the accompanying rise in the
productivity of social labour, THIS BEING EXPRESSED PRECISELY IN
THE *RELATIVE* DECREASE OF VARIABLE CAPITAL VIS-A-VIS CONSTANT"
(emphasis added, JL). *Note well* that Marx is *not* assuming v =
0, in fact, he says "the relative decrease of variable capital" --
*relative decrease* can not BY ANY POSSIBLE STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION be interpreted to mean v = 0. Note also Marx's reference
here to the "accumulation of capital." Yet, the accumulation of
capital as defined by Marx *requires* that v > 0. So we have a
clear choice: either we can accept the absurd v = 0 assumption or
we must reject *all* of Marx's analysis of the capital form and
the accumulation of capital as erroneous.
(b) Note also Marx's qualifiers in the above: "if ...would have to
...or ... if....".
(c) Note also that this passage was intended to be part of a critique
of Price.
(d) Marx two paragraph later ends Ch . 24 as follows: ""We know
however that in actual fact the preservation and thus also the
reproduction of the value of products of past labour is *only* the
result of their contact with living labour; and secondly, that the
command that the products of past labour exercise over living
labour LASTS ONLY SO LONG AS THE CAPITAL RELATION, THE SPECIFIC
SOCIAL RELATION in which past labour confronts living labour as
independent and superior" (p. 524). Yet, we know that if v = 0 this
*negates* the capital relation and renders our analysis incapable
of expressing in thought "the specific social relation(s)" of
capitalism.
> In ope-l 3103, Jerry stated that he is "claiming now that Marx did not assume
> necessary labor or v = 0."
I said it in #3103 and I say it now. Andrew has produceed *nothing* by way
of textual evidence that Marx has assumed v = 0. Moreover, he has NOT
CONFRONTED THE MEANING OF THAT ASSUMPTION WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF MARX'S
OVERALL THEORY.
> OK. Assuming that the full twenty-four hours of the day are entirely
> appropriated by capital, then how is v > 0?
READ AGAIN the very quote that you cited today in reference to "formulas
for the rate of surplus value." That passage AND MANY, MANY, MANY others
indicate that the v = 0 assumption IS TOTALLY INCONSISTENT with Marx's
theory.
> Hic Rhodus! Hic Salta!
Hic Rhodus! Hic Nonsense!
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry