On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Now Allin objects that I have preserved the two equalities by > trickery. But it makes no sense to read the second equality as also > an invariance condition. > > It would make no sense to keep the mass of surplus value invariant > with total value as we modify the cost prices since Marx defines > surplus value as total value minus cost price. As I've said before, I don't accept that the above is Marx's "definition" of surplus value. It's a derivative statement of what surplus value amounts to, good only on the assumption that cost price = value of inputs. Allin C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST