[OPE-L:4700] Re: Re: Re: Re: SV and the F of D

From: Gil Skillman (gskillman@MAIL.WESLEYAN.EDU)
Date: Thu Dec 14 2000 - 18:05:18 EST

In response to this exchange, Rakesh, 

>>>No new value has been created in the circulation of *commodities*. We
>>>begin at t0 and end at t+1. At t+1 the merchants have M' and the
>>>independent commodity producers have C'.
>>That's right, and M' is greater than M, so by your own definition, surplus
>>value has been achieved.
>>>You misunderstand Marx's aggregate definition.
>>No, I asked if you had any problem with my understanding of your
>>characterization of surplus value as an "aggregate category", and you
>>voiced no concern at all.  It doesn't seem legitimate to bring up a new
>>issue now that it seems there's a difficulty with the definition.

you wrote

>Well, then I was not clear about precisely what I meant by aggregate. 
>Marx has established that all values can be expressed as sums of 
>money. The total value has a monetary expression at t0; it has a 
>monetary expression at t+1. In your example of merchant example there 
>is precisely no more value at t+1 than at t. M' minus M in aggregate 
>terms (which is not the same as M' minus M for any individual or 
>subgroup for the whole) is zero in your example. There is no surplus 

OK, then, it was my mistake in interpreting you so literally.  In order to
avoid a similar mistake in the future, let me now ask:  is it true that by
your understanding of Marx's Ch. 4 definition, surplus value cannot exist
if new value is not created between the initiation of the circuit of
capital and its culmination?


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