On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 aramos@aramos.bo wrote:
> In ope-l 4267 Alejandro Valle-Baeza wrote:
>
> > The critic of Mandel to this is simple and (I think) correct:
> >
> > S(t+1)/S(t)=L(t+1)/L(t) s(t+1)/s(t)
> > where S(t) is surplus value in time t
> > L(t) is labor force in time t
> > s(t) rate of surplus value in t, defined by: S(t)/L(t)
>
> Alejandro Ramos:
>
> Thanks to Alejandro Valle for his reply. I ask:
>
> 1. L(t) seems *variable capital*, not total living labor-force, as
> suggested by the notation "L". Is it true? Strictly speaking, if these
> magnitudes are measured in labor-time L(t) would be *necessary
> labor* instead of *variable capital*.
This would be true if rate of surplus value would be defined, as Marx did,
s(t)=S(t)/V(t).
However to disccuss the dinamic limit of surplus value it is useful to
define rate of surplus value by= S(t)/L(t) where L(t) is total living
labor. I know the critic of Marx to this definition, but I think such a
critic is not aplicable to all problems.
>
> 2. I would write: S(t+1)/S(t)=[L(t+1)/L(t)]*[s(t+1)/s(t)]
> Is this right?
>
I do not understand the question here.
> 3. Is this equation in Mandel's articles. Are these magnitudes
> measured in labor-time? What does Mandel say about money-magnitudes?
No, Mandel, until I know, did not use equations in his articles. I
translated his arguments ("tradutore traitore" say Italians). In this
article Mandel did not take care of differences bewteen labor-time and
money magnitudes. I belive that him, in general, was not worried by such
problem.
> > Alejandro Ramos M.
> 3.3.97
>