"Devine, James" wrote: > > Michael H asks: > >>what are similarties/differences between 'surplus value' and what > mainstream economists/journalists call 'added value'...<< > > Gil:>In brief, surplus value is the portion of value added that goes to > the capitalists. The original value is, in Marxian terms, c; value > added corresponds to v+s, to create the total ex post value, c+v+s.< > > Right. There's also a subtler difference, on the theoretical level: the > mainstream assumes that the value (utility-value) of a product is > determined by its market price. For Marx, on the other hand, value and > price only correspond on the abstract level, abstracting from the > heterogeneity of capital and labor. This correspondence works on the > macro-level. >
Surplus value (Value in all its forms) calls attention to social relations, while price conceals (essentially denies) those relations. Hence surplus value is as much a cultural theory as it is a narrowly economic theory. Price also obscures history. Historical theories which see capitalism as omnipresent in all selling and buying seem to be focused on price rather than on value (and the social relations which it manifests). Those theories which see the law of value as existing in all trading societies probably have confused price and value. Carrol > BTW, was Marx the first to use the concept of value-added? Did he ever > use that term? > JD
