Re Gil's [5429]: > I'm always listening, Jerry. Well, that's nice to know. Perhaps I'll have to mention your name on-list more frequently. > But hey, why look there? We need not look > beyond Volume I, and Marx's > "formalistic" treatment of surplus value found > there. In Chapter 4 Marx > defines surplus value as the increment (M'-M) > arising from the circuit of > capital M-C-M', so long as this increment is > understood to correspond to > the "valorization" of the value originally advanced > with M. I don't think that's how Marx *defines* surplus- value. Rather, that is the characteristic way in which surplus value appears to the individual capitalist. Thus, the increment of m that appears at the end of M - C - M' can be attributable to other factors than surplus value. E.g. buying low and selling high. One can not, thus, just look at whether there is M'. One also has to look at whether there is employment of wage-labor by capital and whether there is surplus labor time and unpaid labor time. Moreover, for the capitalist to get the M' then the commodity output must be sold and the value and surplus value thereby materialized (i.e. actualized/realized) in the form of money. > More generally, I'd argue against confusing the > *definition* of surplus > value with the *economic conditions* under > which surplus value is > understood to emerge. I don't think they can be separated. btw, are you in agreement with what Paul B wrote in [5428] re whether worker-owned firms produce surplus value? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT