Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'll be brief.
The confusion both you and Mattick (in the passage you quoted) have is this:
you think by the term variable capital Marx meant wages, when in fact he meant
the value of the capital that capitalists advance in production to cover the
reproduction cost of productive labor (labor's necessities). In other words,
v is a synonym for the value of labor power, not wages. Wages deviate from
variable capital and of course the vlp.
Marx said that the value of labor power "is determined by the value of the
necesities required to produce, develop, maintain, and perpetuate the labouring
power" (see Value, Price and Profit, Interntl Pub. p. 39-40). In defining
capitalism as exploitaion of labor through the unequal labor market exchange,
Marx had to first establish the difference between the values of labor power
and labor (the latter being the total value of the output). In doing so, he
defined the vlp as the cost of the reproduction of labor power, just like any
other commodity.
Then, to explain how capitalism works (laws of motion), Marx begins with a
round of production. Capitalists advance capital at the beginning, consisting
of constant capital (for means of production) and variable capital (for labor
power). This money is advanced so that both elements in production can be
reproduced for the next round. So the value of the capital advanced is equal
to the reproduction cost of the means of production (that which is consumed in
the production round and must be replaced) and labor (labor's basket of social
necessities). Notationally Marx writes the capital advanced as c + v. He
calls one part of the capital "constant" because it enters production at its
value and the other part "variable" because its introduction into production
expands the value produced. Each round, productive labor, whose reproduction
cost comprises variable capital, produces the equivalent of its own value, plus
an excess, which is surplus value.
So variable capital is merely the name for the value of the money a capitalist
must spend in a production to cover the reprodcution cost of productive labor,
preparing the way for the next round.
Now we move from production and values to exchange and money. Money wages are
negotiated by capital and labor. You understand that they devaite from the
value of labor power. So too, do they deviate from variable capital, which is
simply the name (notation, v) given for the value of the capital that
capitalists must spend to cover the value of labor power.
A few quick comments on some of what you wrote:
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> At any rate, the question comes back to the determination of the value of
> labor power, though within a Sraffian framework the concept itself is as
> logical as the idea of a yellow logarithm.
>
> Unless we can figure out how the value of labor power is determined, we
> can't figure out whether wages have been below or above it, as Meek seems
> to have suggested. But didn't he become a Sraffian? So why was he bothering
> with a concept such as the value of labor power? And if the wages actually
> paid are the only real indicator of what this value of labor power is, then
> we're caught in tautology, no?
We *know* how the vlb is determined. Wages don't determine it; the value of
labor's necessities does. You have often talked about how wages deviate from
the vlp (here again in this post), so wages couldn't be the indicator of vlb in
any case.
> >But suppose you still find all of this unconvincing and cling to your
> >wage-variable
> >capital equation.
>
> Not my equation. I have said variable capital is money wages paid to that
> labor power the use of which produces more value than itself. This rules
> out wages paid for that labor power the use of which does not have this
> value producing quality. Perhaps my distinction is not tenable?
The discussion of why wages are not the same thing as variable capital has
nothing to do with the productive-unproductive labor distinction you raise
here. Your saying that "variable capital is money wages paid to that labor
power" (which is what I meant by "your wage-variable capital equation") is the
problem. The conceptual difference bewteen v and wages is what I have tried to
explain above.
RO