Gar Lipow wrote: > I always had the impression that surplus value was not a concept that > applied only to capitalism, but that capitalism had as a critical core > a particular way of assigning claims on surplus value. For instance, > under some forms of feudalism the primary producer of surplus value > was agricultural labor, but the primary means of claiming that surplus > value was rent. True?
My reading of Marx is that while surplus-labor occurs in all class systems, surplus-value only exists in capitalism, generalized commodity production (under which labor-power is treated as a commodity). It's only under capitalism that we see M being applied to hire labor-power to produce commodities that are sold for M', where M' - M = surplus-value > 0. In Marx, value and exchange-value refer to money being paid and received (unlike use-value, which can't be quantified). Under feudalism, it's true, agricultural labor produces a surplus. The producers may be paid a money rent (though it could show up as simple forced labor or as a rent paid in kind). But it's not just money that's laid out to get a surplus. It's also force, either directly or to limit the mobility of the direct producer. Under capitalism, the direct application of force is not necessary. That job is centralized in the state. -- Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
