[Marxism] If you want to identify the ruling class, you have to decide what is a social class.

[S. Artesian]

C is not a quantity independent of unit time-- c is the constant capital 
consumed in production-- it has a definite value, the socially necessary 
time for its reproduction.

Look at Capital Vol 1, Chapter 8, Constant Capital and Variable Capital:

"The labourer does nto perform two operations at once, one in order to add 
value to the cotton, the other in order to preserve the value of the means 
of production.... But, by the very act of adding new value, he preserves the 
former values."

And later--

"It is thus strikingly clear that the means of production never transfer 
more value to the product than they themselves lose during the labor process 
by the destruction of their own use-value.  If such an instrument has no 
value to lost, if, in other words, it is not the product of human labour, it 
transfers no value to the product... In this class are included all means of 
production supplied by nature without human assistance....."

Bottom line-- it it contributes to value, if it gives up its use-value in 
the production process, it gives it up by becoming part of the exchange 
value of the commodity.  As the product then of human labor, it assumes an 
equivalent basis for exchange with all other commodities, that basis being 
the necessary unit time for reproduction.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Aarons" <aaron at mylists.fastmail.fm>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] If you want to identify the ruling class, you have to 
decide what is a social class.


> At 01:32 -0700 2008/11/02, Aaron Aarons wrote:
>>1) Mathematically, adding c to v and/or s makes no sense, since c is a 
>>measure of value while v and s are measures of value per unit time. It's 
>>like adding miles and miles per hour.
>
> At 08:08 -0500 2008/11/02, S. Artesian wrote:
>>In reference to 1:  Marx uses  "c+v+s" extensively.  That is in fact how 
>>he
>>defines the value of a commodity, is it not?   c,v,s are in fact all made
>>equivalent through their expression in money terms, in their exchange, 
>>with
>>the s hidden by the wage form.
>
> Expressing c, v and s in money terms doesn't change the fact -- if it is, 
> in fact, a fact -- that c is a quantity independent of the unit of time 
> used while s and v depend on the choice of that unit. Thus, e.g., if you 
> change the time unit from a day to a week, s and v will each be multiplied 
> by 5 (or 6 or 7), while c will remain unchanged.
>
> If I'm wrong about the meaning of c, i.e., if "constant capital" is not in 
> fact constant but something else, I'd appreciate an explanation. I've 
> raised this before and never gotten one.
>
> - Aaron
>
> P.S. I'll deal with the response to my point (2) in a later post.
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: 
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/sartesian%40earthlink.net