>can someone out there explain meaning of: M-C-M' ?
thanks for your responses.
-----------------------
jim: It refers to the capitalist process of exploitation. The representative
capitalist lays out money (M) in order to get more money (M' > M). The
difference between the two is what Marx calls surplus-value.
rob: his notion that capitalist value stems from labour power, and that
there
must be a difference between labour power's use value and its exchange value
for the system to work, ergo it is an exploitative system.
----------------------
but doesn't the capitalist-entrepreneur deserve SOME remunerative "wage" for
the effort, organizational talent, time, worry and risk he/she takes to
establish the business that benefits the workers who are employed and
society which gets to use the products of the business? why assume that ALL
the M'-M is surplus labor value and hence "exploitative"? suppose the
business is created by a socialist entrepreneur. surely that person has to
receive some "wage" for his/her work. why not the capitalist entrepreneur
too?
under socialism, the excess over the entrepreneur's remuneration (surplus
value) would be required by the socialist govt. to expand present businesses
and create new businesses. IOW, surplus value (or whatever that delta is
called under socialism) has to be accumulated under any system to produce
more capital to expand production for an an expanding population with
expanding wants. under socialism, it seems that the wage earner is still
"exploited" since he/she doesn't get all the surplus value. maybe the
answer to my question is that socialists make the distinction btwn "private"
surplus value and "public" surplus value and find the latter ethically
acceptable but not the former?
(i know i should study Marx, but whenever i try, i can never get through Ch.
1 before becoming hopelessly confused!)
norm
