The following might be considered a more faithful rendition of Marx's
argument in Ch. 5. [But one has to read the chapter backwards to see
that this more precise statement is indeed the precise argument.]
My critique remains the same.
As before:
let A = price-value equivalence, i.e. the condition that
all commodities exchange at their respective values;
let B = a condition arising outside of exchange, i.e. "something
[which] must take place in the background which is not visible in the
circulation itself" [I, p. 268, Penguin]; and
let C= capitalist exploitation, i.e. the "transform[ation] of money
or commodities into capital", i.e. the appropriation of surplus value
Reading Chapter 5 backwards, the core structure of Marx's argument
is:
1) C implies B. ("...for [surplus value] to be formed, something must
take place in the background which is not visible in the circulation
itself.")
This is equivalent to {Not-B implies not-C}, which can be partitioned
into:
1') Not-B and A implies not-C
and
Not-B and not-A implies not-C
Therefore, C implies a condition S which is isomorphic to (A and B).
__________________________________________
My critique goes through as before.
Gil Skillman