**Previous message:**clyder: "[OPE-L:2308] Re: Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'"**In reply to:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:2304] Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ show plain text ]

: 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

But the FMT does not hold in general. Extremely restrictive postulates

are employed -- strictly positive physical surpluses of everything at

every monent, or exactly equal rates of profit everywhere at every

moment. The FMT collapses when these assumptions are relaxed. So

simultaneous valuation implies that surplus labor isn't necessary or

sufficient for profit to exist in the real world.

I've been going around for a couple of years now demonstrating this. No

disproof has come from the physicalist camp. No retraction either. Same

old dogmatism.

Andrew Kliman

**Previous message:**clyder: "[OPE-L:2308] Re: Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'"**In reply to:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:2304] Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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