Author:
... e a burra a fugir
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 31/08/04 23:09
In reply to:
José Manuel Correia
's message, "Re: TROCA DESIGUAL E EVOLUÇÃO SOCIAL - 1" on 31/08/04 18:41
No meio disto tudo, e para que não fique por aí a ideia que São Frederico de Barmen terá mesmo cometido a heresia de distorcer as palavras do Sagrado Profeta de Tiers, vamos lá a ver as escrituras como elas se nos apresentam, segundo os mais modernos escribas deste nosso conturbado tempo:
Segundo São Netsurfer Anonimus, (transcrição verbatim de um iniciado, em versão corrigida), disse-nos então o bendito São Frederico de Barmen:
"Ou o trabalho acumulado cria valor, como o trabalho vivo, e então a lei do valor não vigora; ou não o cria, e neste caso a argumentação de Schmidt é incompatível com a lei do valor".
Daí concluindo ("de forma inequívoca") o iniciado laico acima referenciado:
"Eu direi: o fundamental da crítica marxista da economia política rui pela base."
Perdoai-me irmaõs se recorro aqui àquele linguajar dos bárbaros saxões dessa remota Anglia, que muitos hoje já consideram o Latim dos nossos tempos...
Mas que nos diz então São Frederico de Barmen?
"Either accumulated labour creates value the same as living labour In that case the law of value does not apply.
Or, it does not create value. In that case Schmidt’s demonstration is incompatible with the law of value"...
Mas, em verdade, em verdade vos digo, Irmãos, que esta não é toda a palavra do apóstolo São Frederico!
Faltou a São Netsurfer Anonimus explicar-nos que logo a seguir, o abençoado São Frederico de Barmen nos explica com santa paciência:
"Schmidt strayed into this bypath when quite close to the solution, because he believed that he needed nothing short of a mathematical formula to demonstrate the conformance of the average price of every individual commodity with the law of value. But while on the wrong track in this instance, in the immediate proximity of the goal, the rest of his booklet is evidence of the understanding with which he drew further conclusions from the first two volumes of Capital".
"His is the honour of independently finding the correct explanation developed by Marx in the third part of the third volume for the hitherto inexplicable sinking tendency of the rate of profit, and, similarly, of explaining the derivation of commercial profit out of industrial surplus-value, and of making a great number of observations concerning interest and ground-rent, in which he anticipates ideas developed by Marx in the fourth and fifth parts of the third volume".
Mas, comentando esta argumentação do laico "Philosophiae Doctoris" Conrad Schmidt, já antes o abençoado São Frederico de Barmen nos dissera que:
"The construction is extremely ingenious. It is completely patterned after the Hegelian model, but like the majority of Hegelian constructions it is not correct. Surplus-product or paid product, makes no difference. If the law of value is also to be directly valid for the average prices, both of them must be sold at prices proportionate to the socially necessary labour required and expended in producing them".
"The law of value is aimed from the first against the idea derived from the capitalist mode of thought that accumulated labour of the past, which comprises capital, is not merely a certain sum of finished value, but that, because a factor in production and the formation of profit, it also produces value and is hence a source of more value than it has itself;" - ponto e vírgula...
Cuidado, irmãos, é importante ler esta frase como um todo...
Segundo nos diz São Frederico de Barmen,
é o "capitalist mode of thought" quem pressupõe que
"because (it is) a factor of production and the formation of profit, it also produces value and is hence a source of more value it has itself;"
E cuidado irmãos, pois logo a seguir vem
"it (sujeito da acção 'a lei do valor') establishes that living labour alone possesses this faculty."
"It is well known that capitalists expect equal profits proportionate to their capitals and regard their advances of capital as a sort of cost-price of their profits. But if Schmidt utilises this conception as a means of reconciling prices based on the average rate of profit with the law of value, he repudiates the law of value itself by attributing to it as one of its co-determinative factors a conception with which the law is wholly at variance".
Difficile est satiram non scribere...
O vosso humilde Postulante
Guilherme
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 