[OPE-L:4601] Re: Re: Re: reply to Fred (1)

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2000 - 05:23:49 EST

On 2 Dec 2000, at 23:12, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> Again, this cannot be. Marx cannot simply take C and V as given. You have
> simply missed my argument here!  Marx has to stipulate that the input
> means of production and means of subsistence are bought at prices EXACTLY
> proportional to their full value. Only this way can he ensure that the
> only source of surplus value is the consumption of labor power (if 
> leather sells below value, the surplus value embodied in boots could be
> due to the self valorization of the leather, not the exploitation of the
> proletariat); correlatively, only by stipulating exchange at value can he
> ensure that live labor does indeed produce surplus value (if the prices of
> leather or awls are taken as given and happen to sell above value, dM
> could be swallowed up by M).

Hi Rakesh,

All these 'stipulations' seem a million miles from Marx to me. At 
any rate, your interpretation flatly contradicts the Marx's discussion 
in ch. 5 and ch 6, vol 1 of CAPITAL, where Marx goes on at length 
that he need not assume price=value and where he claims to 
establish that SV has its only source in labour power / labour.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST