Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 05:26:25 EDT


you seem happy with what I said, but may I add one other point. What is
striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart from
clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate the
concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really quite
striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned class, and
to regard the value relation as non existant before the individual sale or
sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the astute accountants must do)
that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of appraisal - seems to me to
be quite, let us say, 'odd'. As we see in another another thread , Marx (and
the capitalists) assumed for general purposes that value was ( had to be)
realised if we are examining accumulation and not collapse. Once  one
decides to take on the worries of the individual capitalist then of course
general theory goes out of the window, and all sorts of pragmatic
propositions can arise!



----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Brown" <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

> Paul,
> Nope. From the perpsective of the system as whole money, profit, wages and
interest must (and do) all exist simultaneusly to value and surplus value.
> Value and surplus value must reflect themselves in money categories
(essence must appear) which requires the simultaneous exitsence of those
> You probably have in mind thinking of a production period for the system
as a whole, in which case as you say 'obviously' we have a temporal
sequence. That is, taking a 'system-wide' perspective can mean different
things depending on context.
> I am engaging with, e.g. Michael L.'s recent post  (he argued for
simultaneity), with Rakesh's posts and, more generally, considering the
debates regarding value theory where a key point is whether and in what
sense value exists prior to actual sale. Many deny that it does so. It then
seems to me difficult to think in terms of a production period. How can we
think in these terms (insofar as we are thinking of value production) if
value doesn't exist prior to sale? Hence I am trying to answer this question
whilst retaining the important insight that essence must appear.
> Many thanks,
> Andy
> Andrew,
> the realisation of surplus value in its different forms is obviously
> temporal, the productive worker does not create rent per se. This is the
> case for the system as a whole and the individual circuit.
> Paul Bullock

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT