[OPE-L:2308] Re: Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'

From: clyder (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 05:20:59 EST

[ show plain text ]

----- Original Message -----
From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2304] Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'

> Paul writes, in part,
> >Why, Mike is there any problem with explaining profit for you, why bring
> labour
> >into it at all if you dont think labour regulates prices.
> >
> Here's one way of answering: the validity of the "fundamental Marxian
> theorem", which asserts the logical equivalence of positive rate of profit
> (in real or monetary units) and positive rate of exploitation (in labor
> units) does not depend one way or another on the proposition that labor
> "regulates" prices. Viewed from this angle, this significance of surplus
> labor for the existence of profit is logically independent of the latter
> hypothesis. Gil
How do you define rate of exploitation independently of money profits
in that case?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST