From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 05:26:25 EDT
Andy, you seem happy with what I said, but may I add one other point. What is striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart from clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really quite striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned class, and to regard the value relation as non existant before the individual sale or sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the astute accountants must do) that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of appraisal - seems to me to be quite, let us say, 'odd'. As we see in another another thread , Marx (and the capitalists) assumed for general purposes that value was ( had to be) realised if we are examining accumulation and not collapse. Once one decides to take on the worries of the individual capitalist then of course general theory goes out of the window, and all sorts of pragmatic propositions can arise! Cheers paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Brown" <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > Paul, > > Nope. From the perpsective of the system as whole money, profit, wages and interest must (and do) all exist simultaneusly to value and surplus value. > Value and surplus value must reflect themselves in money categories (essence must appear) which requires the simultaneous exitsence of those categories. > > You probably have in mind thinking of a production period for the system as a whole, in which case as you say 'obviously' we have a temporal sequence. That is, taking a 'system-wide' perspective can mean different things depending on context. > > I am engaging with, e.g. Michael L.'s recent post (he argued for simultaneity), with Rakesh's posts and, more generally, considering the debates regarding value theory where a key point is whether and in what sense value exists prior to actual sale. Many deny that it does so. It then seems to me difficult to think in terms of a production period. How can we think in these terms (insofar as we are thinking of value production) if value doesn't exist prior to sale? Hence I am trying to answer this question whilst retaining the important insight that essence must appear. > > Many thanks, > > Andy > > > > Andrew, > the realisation of surplus value in its different forms is obviously > temporal, the productive worker does not create rent per se. This is the > case for the system as a whole and the individual circuit. > > > Paul Bullock > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT