From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 18 2003 - 09:43:59 EDT
Paolo wrote: > 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 Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that we accepted the above as valid. Does it suggest any insights that weren't developed elsewhere by Marx? Does it have any implications for subjects that are analysed later by Marx or are "post-Capital" topics? > 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. I'm not convinced that this case was "supposed" to be there (see excerpt below from a prior post). Nor do I comprehend yet the significance for you of it not being there (see above). In solidarity, Jerry > I think, though, that one should also ask whether he didn't > discuss the sub-case you mention because he felt that he had > already discussed that subject elsewhere. He seems to say as > much early 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).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT