[OPE-L:2074] Re: Re: value-form theories

["C. J. Arthur" <cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 18:20:24 -0000
>From: Michael J Williams <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>

>
>Is the justification that L is the sole source of surplus-value derived by a
>process of elimination? Well, maybe. But it is not the simplistic process of
>which Marx is sometimes accused.
>Labour is the only socially necessary 'factor' (of use-value production)
>grasped by the value form (the wage) and produced outside capitalist
>commodity production.

I see two problems with this. You have ignored the other two factors, land
and machinery, one of these is a value and the other has a value form (the
rent). True the machinery is produced by capital as a value but land is not.
Conversely labour, while a factor, does *not* have a value form, it is
rightly defined by Marx in the Grundrisse as 'not-value'. It is labour
power that has a value form although not a produced commodity. Even if it
were however, and contained value added to boot, thus raising its price,
this would not prevent the source of value, viz labour, from generating
surplus labour and hence surplus value.
Chris A

P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
<cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)