> I think Andrew's interpretation is quite forced. Consider the following:
> 1. Surplus-value is the difference between the labour-value of the output
> and the sum of the labour-value of the inputs.
> 2. Surplus-value is the difference between the value of the output (as a sum
> of money) and the total sum of value laid out as money to purchase inputs.
> Andrew is (I think) saying 2 and denying 1 (which is why he has been
> interpreted by NC/Strathclyde as not having a LABOUR theory of value).
> I think Marx is asserting 1 and 2 as synonymous (and can do so because he is
> assuming prices proportional to values).
>
> Am I interpreting Andrew correctly?
> And what do others think about the substantive issue?
Simon has the NC angle right.
> Lastly, I eventually worked out what BTW meant. But what on earth does RTFM!
> mean?
In Usenet parlance, it's "Read the ****ing Manual". Here, it might be
"Read the ****ing Marx".
Allin.