The following passage is from Ch. 47 of _Capital_ III, "The Genesis of
Capitalist Ground Rent" (p. 923, Vintage, emphasis added):
"An incorrect conception of the nature of rent has been handed down to modern
times, a conception based on the fact that rent in kind still survives from
the Middle Ages, in complete contradiction to the conditions of the capitalist
mode of production .... The impression is thus given that rent arises not
from the price of the agricultural product but rather from its quantity, i.e.
not from social relations but from the earth itself. We have already shown
how, even though surplus-value is expressed in a surplus product, IT IS NOT
TRUE CONVERSELY THAT ANY SURPLUS PRODUCT IN THE SENSE OF A MERE INCREASE IN
THE QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCT REPRESENTS A SURPLUS-VALUE. It can represent a
deduction from value. Otherwise the cotton industry would have had to show an
enormous surplus-value in 1860, compared with 1840, even though the price of
yarn had fallen."
Does anyone think this passage is compatible with the claim that Marx held
that the prices (and/or values) of inputs are determined simultaneously with
the prices (and/or values) of outputs? If so, how is it compatible? If not,
are those who have made such a claim willing to renounce it?
Happy holidays.
Andrew Kliman