(no subject)
Paul Cockshott (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:37:29 +0000
jurriaan bendien wrote:
>
> I finds Fred's interpretation very persuasive. It is based essentially on
> two theses:
>
> 1. The costs of unproductive labor are part of the surplus-value component
> of the price of
> commodities, defined as value added less variable capital.
> 2. The total surplus-value is divided into two parts: one part that pays
> for unproductive costs and the remaining profit for capitalists.
>
> The worry I still have with it is, that this aggregate of total new INCOME
> of capital which Fred defines as surplus-value includes unproductive COSTS
> to capital. The total surplus value is therefore "surplus" only in a
> special sense. We could say perhaps, for accounting purposes, "gross
> surplus-value is not equal to gross profits".
>
It is surely income insofar as it is a return from sales of final
products.
The fact that this income is balanced in the accounts by expenditure
does
is a necessity which in no way detracts from it being income in the
first
place.