From: Michael Schauerte (mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Sat Jun 23 2007 - 23:31:50 EDT
I should add one more thing, even though my last post was way too long already: When I said that the theoretical question comes down to identifying the origin of profit, using the term "profit" may be confusing , because in fact profit can indeed arise from any economic endeavor. It might be more accurate to say: What is the origin of surplus-value? (and I think I did state it as such at times). But when economists were approaching the question of how to explain where profit comes from, they obviously began from reality as it appeared to them on the phenomenal level, and so they naturally posed the question in terms of profit, rather than "surplus-value," as the latter term is indeed essentially the answer to the question. In other words, it is only once the question has been fundamentally answered that the inadequacy of the term profit itself becomes clear. I only point this out because it could be said that every sort of "exploitation" generates profit, whereas that is not so in the case of surplus-value. Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT