Hi Rakesh. In response this passage from me, >>May I infer, then, that in your reading, Marx's Ch. 5 rejection of the >>possibility that surplus value results from the redistribution of existing >>value constitutes an intended *inference* from his definition of surplus >>value as the positive difference between M' and M, rather than as an >>illustration of an aspect of the *definition* of surplus value? you write >No new value can be created in exchange. So a colony which sells >wares above value is paid back with the already extracted tribute. No >new value has been created by selling above value. In this example, >Marx does not seem to be rejecting the possiblity that sv can result >from exchange as a matter of definition of surplus value. So you may >infer the former of your two possibilities. OK. > Now Roemer has shown the >possibility of what he defines as exploitation through commodity >exchange without a labor market, right? So the question becomes >whether surplus value has been produced in his example, right? Is >this what you are getting at? For the moment, no--Roemer's argument is several steps ahead of us, at least. And Roemer has hardly been careful in demonstrating how his representation corresponds with Marx's. Right now I'm just focusing on *Marx's* definition of surplus value, and whether it rules out redistribution as a basis of surplus value by definition or by inference. We've now cleared that up, at least as far as your reading goes. One more step, and I think I'll know the basic points where we might diverge. [...] >> >>And again: 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? > >Sorry, I did not answer this the first time. As you know, I do think >plantation slavery and the putting out systems were important sources >of surplus value production in early capitalism. But I think Marx >confines himself theoretically only to a market in which labor power >is freely disposed. It allows him to focus on the nature of that >perplexing exchange between proletarian and capitalist. So may I infer from this that in your reading, one *can't* conclude from Ch. 6 that capitalists must hire labor power as a commodity in order to appropriate surplus value, simply because Marx avoids the question entirely by assuming it away? Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST