From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 17:22:03 EDT
> On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 12:12 +0200, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >> The problem at issue is whether all profit is exclusively due to surplus >> labour, and thinking economists say no, because profits can arise simply >> in >> buying and selling already existing assets. > > The problem at issue is whether such profits are surplus labour, not > whether they are due to surplus labour. I do not regard labour as a > cause or source of value or surplus value. Labour and value are > identical. Further, surplus labour only exists as money profits and the > value of these profits is the surplus labour. "Human labour-power in motion, or human labour, **creates value, but is not itself value.** It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities." (Capital I, ch. 1, 2a) > >>From this identity theory perspective it does not matter how profits > arise. > > The thinking economist could take on board the possibility that profits > that arise simply in buying and selling of already existing assets can > be theorised as surplus labour. > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new > Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT