> wages and v are not the same quantity.
Roger, do note that I defined variable capital as the "*money* paid by the capitalist class as a whole for the use of labor power IN THE PRODUCTION OF SURPLUS VALUE." (emphasis new) That is, I did imply the distinction between prod and unprod labor, and do recognize that that the wages paid for the latter do not constitute variable capital which has the property of increasing or varying the quantity of value beyond its own value. Unproductive labor does not have this property. Agreed.
Now let's do what Marx does in vol I. Focus on the production of surplus value and therefore abstract from circulation, realization and finance in which unproductive labor is employed.
You seem to be defining the value of labor power, used productively, as the sum of variable capital invested. But how do we know the latter is big enough to pay wages that approximate the the value of labor power, used productively? If you equate the two (v and the value of labor power), you make it impossible for the wage paid to labor power used productively to ever fall below the value of labor power. We can of course safely say that v will tend to big enough to pay productive labor wages that appromixate the value of labor power; otherwise productive labor will not over time be able to expend the effort to produce surplus value. Yet it seems to me to be a mistake to *define* the value of labor power, used productively, as the monetary sum of variable capital divided by the number of productive laborers. Is this what you are doing? Please clarify.
So in your terms I see variable capital as the total monetary sum used to pay wages for labor power, used productively. Variable capital per worker employed tends to be an expression of the reproduction cost or value of labor power, used productively. But they are not identical. Which creates the possibility that v will not be big enough to pay wages that appromixate the value of labor power. And this opens up the possibility of increasing social and physical misery at a late stage of accumulation.
Yours, Rakesh