Iwao wrote [ope-l 3848],:
>I hardly understand why we may not call the difference a surplus value.
>In your example, the employed skilled worker is "under wage labour - capital
>relation" and adds $10 worth value to the product through reparing the machine.
>If the worker is paid $9 as her/his wage, why aren't we able to call the
difference
>$1 a surplus value? To my eyes the difference occurs from the wage labor -
>capital relation.
>In your understanding, can we say that surplus value is produced only when some
>capitalist employs a worker and let her/him work for other capitalists?
Yes, you are right. It was my slip. I mistook. Since the repairer's labor is
added to the output value in the way of raw materials, and since the
capitalist could have saved $1 because of the repairer's labor employed by
himself, the saved $1 is to be classed as a surplus-value. But, in Jerry's
case, the surplus-value extracted from the repairer's labor is taken to be
$9 multiplied by the rate of exploitaion. This I denied.
Thanks very much.
Chai-on