[OPE-L:4678] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 13:43:37 EST

>Rakesh, you write
>>Gil, once it is concluded that surplus value arises from the use
>>value of a commodity, then surplus value is not appropriated as you
>>seem to imply in (if this is what you mean by "via") the circulation
>>of capital or what you call the circuit of capital.
>Even if surplus value doesn't *originate* in exchange, isn't it true that
>it must be appropriated through exchange, i.e. via the circuit of capital?
>Isn't this what Marx means at the end of Ch. 5 when he says
>"But can surplus-value originate anywhere else than in circulation, which
>is the sum total of all the mutual relations of commodity-owners?....It is
>therefore impossible that, outside the sphere of circulation, a producer of
>commodities can, without coming into contact with other commodity-owners,
>valorize value, and consequently transform money or commodities into
>capital.  Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, *and it is
>equally impossible for it to arise apart from circulation.  It must have
>its origin both in circulation and not in circulation.*" [p. 268; Emphasis

Gil, isn't Marx  saying that surplus value does indeed originate in 
circulation though it is not appropriated there? Now...cross 
examination is up...what's the point...I am anxious to know.  And 
let's not forget that other question about the labor power-labor 
distinction: who is it that freely disposes of labor power? How does 
the human subject live in the shadow of a legal fiction, her 
juridical persona?

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST