I asked >>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. Rakesh, I'd certainly accept the notion that "surplus value" is an aggregate category. A corollary of this understanding is that, whatever it is, surplus value has to be attainable by the capitalist class as a whole, and not just a subset of the class. But again, what *is* surplus value, according to Marx? And in particular, is his Ch. 5 rejection of the possibility that surplus value results from the redistribution of existing value definitional, or an inference based on a previous definition? As for caution, I'm not trying to lay a trap by asking these questions. It's evident that I have done a poor job up to now of conveying the problem with Marx's argument in Vol. I, part 2 of Capital, and moreover I accept the possibility that given your or other OPE-L'rs theoretical concerns, there really isn't a problem in the first place. [But if there is a problem, I believe it's a significant one, which is to say I don't think I'm wasting your time on logical minutiae.] In order to figure that out, I think it would be useful to pinpoint possible differences as to what exactly Marx has established here. >>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. I agree that the commodity called "labor power" is itself embodied in living people. But doesn't one's labor power, understood as a commodity, embody the labor necessary to reproduce that labor power up to the point of exchange? Isn't that necessarily the case in order for this commodity to have a value in the same sense that a manufactured commodity has? But aside from that, can we infer from Marx's analysis in Chapter 6 that capitalists as a class must purchase labor power as a commodity in order to appropriate surplus value? Gil >Yours, Rakesh > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST