From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 23:37:43 EDT
Andrew wrote:
>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?
I'm not certain about the significance
you attribute to 'appearance form' vs form. Yes,
capitalist exploitation must take the form of
money. Are you suggesting that this undercuts the
distinction between the inner structure of
capital and the surface phenomena that for Marx
are related as the invisible to the visible?
Recall, eg., the quotes from Vol III:
>Surplus-value and the rate of surplus-value are…
>the invisible essence to be investigated,
>whereas the rate of profit and hence the form of
>surplus-value as profit are visible surface phenomena (Marx, 1981b: 134).
>Profit is ‘the form of appearance of
>surplus-value, and the latter can be sifted out
>from the former only by analysis’ (Marx, 1981b:
>139). Profit is ‘a transformed form of surplus
>value, a form in which its origin and the secret
>of its existence are veiled and obliterated.’
in sol,
michael
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT