On 2 Dec 2000, at 23:12, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Again, this cannot be. Marx cannot simply take C and V as given. You have > simply missed my argument here! Marx has to stipulate that the input > means of production and means of subsistence are bought at prices EXACTLY > proportional to their full value. Only this way can he ensure that the > only source of surplus value is the consumption of labor power (if > leather sells below value, the surplus value embodied in boots could be > due to the self valorization of the leather, not the exploitation of the > proletariat); correlatively, only by stipulating exchange at value can he > ensure that live labor does indeed produce surplus value (if the prices of > leather or awls are taken as given and happen to sell above value, dM > could be swallowed up by M). Hi Rakesh, All these 'stipulations' seem a million miles from Marx to me. At any rate, your interpretation flatly contradicts the Marx's discussion in ch. 5 and ch 6, vol 1 of CAPITAL, where Marx goes on at length that he need not assume price=value and where he claims to establish that SV has its only source in labour power / labour. Thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST