All of the interpretations of Marx's value theory in which inputs and outputs are valued (priced) simultaneously imply that surplus-labor is *neither* necessary nor sufficient for positive profit.
This is proved for even for economies without joint production, that are able to reproduce themselves over time, in Andrew J. Kliman, "Simultaneous Valuation vs the Exploitation Theory of Profit," _Capital and Class_ 73, Spring 2001. So there are lots of people who do dispute "that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for ... the existence of profit," by virtue of adhering to the interpretations they hold. Andrew Kliman P.S. I hope to say more about this and related matters in a week or two, but I thought it necessary (and sufficient) to make this factual correction here. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gil Skillman Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:23879] Re: marx's proof regarding surplus value and profit Michael writes: >One more short, but obvious point regarding profit and surplus value. >Marx did offer one simple "proof" of the role of surplus value in the >creation of profit. Suppose, he says, that we take the working class as a >whole. If the working-class did not produce anymore than it consumed, >profits would be impossible. Michael, no one disputes that surplus *labor* is a necessary condition for both the existence of profit and the existence of surplus value. It does not follow from this that surplus value has a "role" in the creation of profit. It could with equal (non-) logic be said that profit has a "role" in the creation of surplus value. Similarly, it does it follow that "value... is fundamental to price, in the sense that prices and profits depend on what happens in the sphere of value." Gil
