Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 05:43:12 EDT

Hi all,

Michael L. wrote:

"... if profit is a FORM of surplus value (which is invisible), then so
too is interest a mere FORM--- ie., not something that belongs to the
inner structure of capital in general. Again, Marx was consistent. Here
is another quote from the book (Following Marx) that I mentioned in my
last post (this from a different chapter, 'what is competition?')"

Michael, as you know surplus value is initially defined as M'-M [ch.4,
vol. 1]. Prior to this it has been shown that money is the 'appearance
form' [not just 'form' but '*appearance* form'] of value. After the
initial definition we do indeed find that M'-M is the 'appearance form'
of surplus labour. So I guess I'd want to say that surplus value is,
from the outset, understood to have both visible and invisible aspects
rather than to counter pose an 'invisible' surplus value to a 'visible'
set of 'outer' categories (profit, interest, rent).

Would you agree?

Many thanks,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT