Re: [OPE-L] PUPL and the total profit/total surplus value identity

[Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

> You suggest: There is support in Marx for the idea that these [salaries of
> non-productive labor] are advanced, I think.  After all, if the wages for
> productive workers are advanced (i.e. V is advanced) then why not also for
> the wages of unproductive workers?
> My reply is that Marx's basic principle is that the wages are mainly *not*
> "advanced", i.e. the worker contracts to work first, and gets paid later.

Jurriaan,

V and C are  *advanced* in Marx's theory to the extent that --within
period analysis -- money to purchase means of production and
labour power is assumed to be spent before production in the new
period can commence.

I.e. in the formula

M - C {MP, LP} ... (P) .... C' - M'

M - C happens before P.

Of course, Marx was aware that the wages of  workers are not, _in practice_,
(generally) advanced.  In  claiming that money capital for V is advanced I
think he was making  a simplifying assumption.

I'm still thinking about the rest of your post.

In solidarity, Jerry