Re: (OPE-L) Re: Subcase missing on Chapter 3, Vol III

[Francisco Paulo Cipolla <cipolla@xxxxxxx>]

I am sorry for the portuguese typos in my formula. I had to translate the variables into portuguese for a handout given to the students and then kept l instead of p and m instead of s. The formula is correct as it stands; I am just substituting the letters:

p´1 = (s´1/s´)(C/C1)p´,
where p´1=rate of profit modified
            s´1=rate of surplus value modified
            s´=original rate of surplus value
            C=total capital
            C1=total capital modified
            p´=original rate of profit

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.
Paulo
 

gerald_a_levy wrote:

Paolo wrote: >>> Jerry, if you recall, Marx opens the chapter saying he is going to pursue a purely mathematical analysis. So let us be purely mathematical and impose the following possibility:
s´ variable
v constant
C variable through variations in c
You are right to mention the working day, intensity of labor and wages. Yet we do not need to maintain them constant. In fact, since v is constant s´ can vary only if the length of the working day, the intensity of labor or the wages vary. But once we allow for anyone of these factors determining the rate of surplus value to vary we have the subcase stated above whose formula is:
l₁ = (m´₁/m´)(C/C₁)l,
that is,  the rate of profit modified will depend on the ratio between the modified and the previous rate of surplus value and on the ratio between C and C1. This formula did not appear before! Should it not be considered as an independent case? <<< Hi again Paolo.  You raise different issues: I.)  you ask: why didn't Marx consider the case of v constant and s and Cvariable in Vol. 3, Ch. 3? The above question is, of course, related to another question you ask:_should_ he have considered that as an independent case in Vol. 3,Ch. 3? I consider it highly unlikely that the overlooked the case you mention"by mistake".     There are other possibilities:  to begin with, note thefootnote at the end of this chapter by Engels in which he points out thatthe "manuscript also contains further and very detailed calculations....I have refrained from reproducing this material, since it is of littleimportance for the immediate aim of this book....(Penguin ed., p. 162).So one line of inquiry might involve a re-look at the original drafts todetermine _what exactly_ was not included for publication from thischapter.  I think, though, that one should also ask whether he didn'tdiscuss the sub-case you mention because he felt that he hadalready discussed that subject elsewhere.  He seems to say as muchearly 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).  There is also an indicationthat at least one of these possibilities would be explored more concretelyin a separate book to be written _after Capital_:  thus, in Vol. 3, Ch. 14,Section 3 he indicated that a "reduction of wages below their value ..."has its place in an account of competition, which is not dealt with inthis work" (Ibid, p. 342). II.) You ask me to respond to the formula that you propose above. Before I do that, I would like to see that formula developed moreand, in particular, made symbolically more consistent with theother formulas in that chapter. [btw, I assume that the beginning of that formula was a typo and thatwhere you wrote '1' (upper-case) you intended to write "p'".] In solidarity, Jerry