[OPE-L:5252] Re: Re: state and workers'ownership and (un)productive labor

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Mar 24 2001 - 09:47:25 EST

Re Gil's [5429]:

> I'm always listening, Jerry. 

Well, that's nice to know. Perhaps I'll have
to mention your name on-list more frequently.

> But hey, why look there?  We need not look 
> beyond Volume I, and Marx's
> "formalistic" treatment of surplus value found 
> there.  In Chapter 4 Marx
> defines surplus value as the increment (M'-M) 
> arising from the circuit of
> capital M-C-M', so long as this increment is 
> understood to correspond to
> the "valorization" of the value originally advanced > with M.  

I don't think that's how Marx *defines* surplus-
value. Rather, that is the characteristic way in which
surplus value appears to the individual capitalist.
Thus, the increment of m that appears at the end
of M - C - M' can be attributable to other factors
than surplus value. E.g. buying low and selling high. 

One can not, thus, just look at whether there is 
M'. One also has to look at whether there is
employment of wage-labor by capital and whether
there is surplus labor time and unpaid labor time.
Moreover, for the capitalist to get the M' then the
commodity output must be sold and the value
and surplus value thereby materialized 
(i.e. actualized/realized)  in the form of money.

> More generally, I'd argue against confusing the 
> *definition* of surplus
> value with the *economic conditions* under 
> which surplus value is
> understood to emerge.  

I don't think they can be separated. 

btw, are you in agreement with what Paul B 
wrote in [5428] re whether worker-owned 
firms produce surplus value?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT