It's a speculative gain on capitalized rent, no? On Jul 22, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Gil Skillman wrote:
> 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
