P.S.: If you changed your example so that instead the land in question was rented to a capitalist firm, which uses the land in its production process and pays the rent out of returns derived from extracting surplus value from its labor force, I would agree with Jim's suggestion that the rent in question represented an allocation of surplus value according to Marx's reasoning.
Sabri, it's easiest to answer your question in its final version: no surplus value at all is associated with the DX in your example, because DX does not reflect the expenditure of labor subsequent to the purchase of the piece of land for X. Consequently DX represents merely the redistribution of existing values (measured in labor terms) and so, according to Marx (see V. I, ch. 5 (!), pp. 265-66 in the Penguin edition), cannot constitute surplus value. One catch: Marx represents this claim as a deduction from previously established principles, but it is instead just a stipulation on his definition of "surplus value." Gil >I have a question to the Marx experts: > >How do we distinguish between rent and profit? > >For example, if I bought a piece of land for X dollars and sold it >X+DX dollars with DX>0, did I make a profit or just collected some >rent? What sort of surplus value is associated with that DX? > >Best, >Sabri >_______________________________________________ >pen-l mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
