re 4625 >Rakesh, before I respond to your comments, let me see if I can clarify what >lies at the heart of the issue I'm raising by asking a couple of questions. > I invite interested others to offer their responses as well. > >1) How does Marx define surplus value? In particular, when Marx rejects >the possibility of explaining surplus value on the basis of a >redistribution of existing values via exchange (V. I Ch. 5, p. 265), is he >illustrating an aspect of his definition of surplus value, or establishing >a deductive inference on the basis of a previously given definition? Gil, anxious to see what you are getting at, I shall cautiously say that surplus value is inherently an aggregate category--that is, Marx is trying to explain how in the system as a whole (M' minus M) or dM or surplus value obtains. > >2) What theoretical point does Marx establish in V. I, Chapter 6, that we >don't already know by the end of Ch. 5? In particular, do we learn from >his analysis in Chapter 6 that capitalists as a class must purchase a >particular commodity called "labor power" in order to appropriate surplus >value? Marx clarifies the distinction between labor power and labor. That is, the worker is not selling a commodity in which past labor is embodied; she sells a commodity which exists only in her living self. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST