From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Thu Sep 20 2007 - 08:51:56 EDT
> I think your interpretation is correct on all these points, and this > passage would, I think, be hard for those who identify value input in > the transformationprocess with money spent, to reconcile with their view > of Marx. Paul C and Ian W (and Jurriaan): Means of production and labour power must be *purchased* before they can become inputs in the capitalist production process. This requires that they take the form of constant and variable capital, and that means that they take the *commodity-form* and thereby also must have use-value and exchange-value and that EV must be represented by a certain amount of money. How can it be otherwise? How, under capitalism, can the value input _not_ be related to money spent? How can a contrary perspective be reconciled with Marx's frequently stated perspectives on the actualization (often translated as "realization") of surplus value? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT