In OPE-L 4497, Rakesh Bhandari wrote : Surplus value does not have to remain invariant in the complete : transformation in order for the the theory of exploitation to hold. Why then, pray tell, did the author insist that total profit equals total surplus-value? Rakesh's position implies internal contradiction, or error, or "incompleteness" on Marx's part. Rakesh claims that deviations of cost-price from the value of the used-up means of production and consumption are offset by deviations of aggregate profit from aggregate surplus-value. I know of ABSOLUTELY NO textual evidence that supports this claim. It is simply a consequence of his adherence to the physicalist dogma that the value of constant capital cannot differ from the value of the means of production. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EST