[OPE-L:5269] Re: Re: Re: Re: 's' is for surplus value (not surplus product)

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

Re Gil's [5267]:

Previously I quoted from Vol 3, Ch. 51:

> (snip, JL) "the two above characters of the
> product as commodity and the commodity
> as capitalistically produced commodity give rise
> to the entire determination of value and the
> regulation of the total production by value"
> >(Ibid, emphasis added, JL).

The "entire determination of value."

> And, Marx continues (p. 1021): "It is *only*
> because labour is presupposed in the form of
> wage-labour, and the means of production
> in the form of capital (i.e. *only* as a result
> of this specific form of these two essential
> agents of production), that *one part of the
> value (product) presents itself as surplus-
> value and this surplus-value presents itself
> as profit (rent)*, the gains of the capitalist, as
> additional available wealth belonging to him."

Gil responded:

> Yes, that's descriptively true under the
> capitalist mode of production, but
> still not part of the definition of surplus value.
> See  above.

You should see the above ... again.  You should
especially note the word "only" -- repeated twice.
This is *more than descriptive*:  "only" posits a
*unique* condition.  Without this "only" then
one part of the value product would not present itself as surplus value.

I'll grant you that these quotations do not entirely
settle the matter, and indeed we could go to many
other sources in Marx to examine this question,
but you can see above that I have given you
the one instance that you requested.

In solidarity, Jerry