Wellsy wrote:When examining the c - m - c circuit, someone might make something to sell it in order to acquire another use value. In such a process, equal values are exchanged and no new value is made.
That's just self-evidently false. The value of what they made was created.
In the capitalist circuit of m - c - m’, the capitalist invests money in production of commodities and ends up with a greater amount of money than they initially had. The question is how do they acquire more than they started with.
By causing value to be produced.
The idea is that in exchange, one cannot create more value although individuals might benefit unequal exchange such as with merchant capital. Individuals profit, but the total isn’t increased, value merely changes places but there is no expansion of value.
Wrong. Total value was increased by production of what was exchanged.
So one looks to commodity production and not exchange for the origins of a surplus in the capital circuit. In examining production Marx considers that workers are paid for their labour power but produce with their labour a surplus product and value over and above their necessary labor for the equivalent in wages to purchase use values to survive.
Gibberish. The only reason to offer workers access to that economic opportunity they would not otherwise have had is to apply their labor to production of value greater than their wages.
I also believe that a surplus is made more clearly in past societies with the peasant or slave working to produce a surplus for a lord or master.
Because like all Marxists, you refuse to know the fact that the slave owner and landowner are not contributory roles, and only take, while the owner of producer goods increases production by his contribution thereof.
The relationship becomes obscured by a focus on equality of exchange but Marx’s maintains an equality of exchange of wages for labour power but recognizing that labour can produce more value than labour power unlike other commodities.