From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 05:43:12 EDT
Hi all, Michael L. wrote: "... if profit is a FORM of surplus value (which is invisible), then so too is interest a mere FORM--- ie., not something that belongs to the inner structure of capital in general. Again, Marx was consistent. Here is another quote from the book (Following Marx) that I mentioned in my last post (this from a different chapter, 'what is competition?')" Michael, as you know surplus value is initially defined as M'-M [ch.4, vol. 1]. Prior to this it has been shown that money is the 'appearance form' [not just 'form' but '*appearance* form'] of value. After the initial definition we do indeed find that M'-M is the 'appearance form' of surplus labour. So I guess I'd want to say that surplus value is, from the outset, understood to have both visible and invisible aspects rather than to counter pose an 'invisible' surplus value to a 'visible' set of 'outer' categories (profit, interest, rent). Would you agree? Many thanks, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT