The "labor theory of value" (or rather, Marx's "law of value") says that for the system as a whole, surplus-value only arises in production, not in exchange. But for individual capitalists or even countries, it can arise that way, as transfers from the rest of the system.
Surplus-value can arise in production under other, non-capitalist, modes of production and exploitation (feudalism, slavery, etc.) and then be translated into capitalist terms. Sometimes, the line between production and exchange is hard to draw in practice, however, just as capitalism has sometimes been merged with other modes of production in practice. On 11/2/05, Brian McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes Michael and CB, what of the labor theory of value that I discuss far and > wide? It has never been more telling, in my view, and yet one still has to > be open to the exchange question. > > Please advise! > > Non-economist. . . > > Brian McKenna > > > In a message dated 11/2/05 11:07:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Michael Perelman wrote: > >I was thinking more in terms of Marx's understanding of merchant > capitalism as a system in which profits were made by arbitrage rather than > by improving methods of production. > > > ^^^^^ > CB: Is arbitrage buy cheap/sell dear ? If so , does your hypothesis suggest > that capitalists are tending to make profit from raising prices on > consumers > more, and less in the way that Marx described the secret of surplus value . > That is , Marx argued profit is not made by gouging consumers in exchange ( > money is not made in exchange) but exploiting wage-laborers in production > by > not paying them for a portion of the workday . So a shift to profit made in > exchange , not as much in production, as Marx emphasized ? > > > -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
