In response to this exchange, Rakesh, >>>No new value has been created in the circulation of *commodities*. We >>>begin at t0 and end at t+1. At t+1 the merchants have M' and the >>>independent commodity producers have C'. >> >>That's right, and M' is greater than M, so by your own definition, surplus >>value has been achieved. >> >>>You misunderstand Marx's aggregate definition. >> >>No, I asked if you had any problem with my understanding of your >>characterization of surplus value as an "aggregate category", and you >>voiced no concern at all. It doesn't seem legitimate to bring up a new >>issue now that it seems there's a difficulty with the definition. you wrote >Well, then I was not clear about precisely what I meant by aggregate. >Marx has established that all values can be expressed as sums of >money. The total value has a monetary expression at t0; it has a >monetary expression at t+1. In your example of merchant example there >is precisely no more value at t+1 than at t. M' minus M in aggregate >terms (which is not the same as M' minus M for any individual or >subgroup for the whole) is zero in your example. There is no surplus >*value*. OK, then, it was my mistake in interpreting you so literally. In order to avoid a similar mistake in the future, let me now ask: is it true that by your understanding of Marx's Ch. 4 definition, surplus value cannot exist if new value is not created between the initiation of the circuit of capital and its culmination? Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST