[OPE-L:4627] Re: Questions

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 21:51:34 EST

re 4625

>Rakesh, before I respond to your comments, let me see if I can clarify what
>lies at the heart of the issue I'm raising by asking a couple of questions.
>  I invite interested others to offer their responses as well. 
>1)  How does Marx define surplus value? In particular, when Marx rejects
>the possibility of explaining surplus value on the basis of a
>redistribution of existing values via exchange (V. I Ch. 5, p. 265), is he
>illustrating an aspect of his definition of surplus value, or establishing
>a deductive inference on the basis of a previously given definition?

Gil,  anxious to see what you are getting at, I shall cautiously say 
that surplus value is inherently an aggregate category--that is, Marx 
is trying to explain how in the system as a whole (M' minus M) or dM 
or surplus value obtains.

>2)  What theoretical point does Marx establish in V. I, Chapter 6, that we
>don't already know by the end of Ch. 5?  In particular, do we learn from
>his analysis in Chapter 6 that capitalists as a class must purchase a
>particular commodity called "labor power" in order to appropriate surplus

Marx clarifies the distinction between labor power and labor. That 
is, the worker is not selling a commodity in which past labor is 
embodied; she sells a commodity which exists only in her living self.

Yours, Rakesh

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