Re: [OPE-L] Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": book launch talks, reviews, media coverage

From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Wed Aug 29 2007 - 17:22:03 EDT

> On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 12:12 +0200, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
>> The problem at issue is whether all profit is exclusively due to surplus
>> labour, and thinking economists say no, because profits can arise simply
>> in
>> buying and selling already existing assets.
> The problem at issue is whether such profits are surplus labour, not
> whether they are due to surplus labour. I do not regard labour as a
> cause or source of value or surplus value. Labour and value are
> identical. Further, surplus labour only exists as money profits and the
> value of these profits is the surplus labour.

"Human labour-power in motion, or human labour, **creates value, but is
not itself value.**
It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of
some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation
of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective
existence, as being a something materially different from the linen
itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other
(Capital I, ch. 1, 2a)

>>From this identity theory perspective it does not matter how profits
> arise.
> The thinking economist could take on board the possibility that profits
> that arise simply in buying and selling of already existing assets can
> be theorised as surplus labour.
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT