> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 98 12:29:00 EST
> From: David Laibman <DLaibman@brooklyn.cuny.edu>
> To: OPE list <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: Laibman said what?
David writes:
> He [Marx] also made the decision not to include the material on
> the LTFRP in Volume I of CAPITAL, even though it existed in ms.
> long before 1867.
Alejandro asks:
Is there some Marx''s plan in which the LTFRP is included in Vol I of
Capital?
I think the consideration of this law requires the *previous*
development of the categories of *profit*, and *rate of profit*.
Certainly, Marx doesn''t present these categories in Volume 1. So, it
is not clear to me how Marx could have decided wheather or not
include the LTFRP in Vol. I. This "decision" would have implied a
complete different plan for Vol I, in which the categories "profit"
and "rate of profit" were presented.
Alejandro Ramos
P.S. I''m still in debt with Fred''s interesting post, but it seems
I''ll post my reply from Buenos Aires next week. (Jerry, is this
possible? Maybe I sent the post to you, or I can change for some days
my ID.)