: Ah, the millionaire next door argument again. Even if it was correct---and you never proved it satisfactorily---you NEGLECT 90% of the population. And that's a lot to neglect.Your moving forward slowly - I'm glad you accepted that the preceding argument would make a good incentive to ownership.
: No---nobody who read even half of the first volume would ever call machinery variable capital without qualifying their statement in contradistinction to Marx.
The posts are *critical* of the theory, when you stop marking my posts for the degree of unquestioning agreement and / or 'accuracy in transcription' you will note that statements of criticism and disgreement would have to, by definition, *not* be a precise transcript of 'Capital', nor would they, by definition, accept every premise there in.
I realize and appreciate that 'capital' is very important to you but there are other theoretical frameworks and many pertinent criticisms.
I'm not saying that the counter point "the use value of a commodity is not produced by surplus labor, but by the give-and-take action between the various elements including machinery in the production process. Therefore, machinery is a kind of variable capital which produces profit." must be unequivocably correct, I think the Marxian theory falls down so much earlier (my original post) so as to not necessitate a piece by piece deconstruction - but I am going through it in order to have a discussion of the subject matter and to suggest counter views without simply referring people to bookshops and promising quasi-religious revelations.
jeeez.
: In other words, you're bluffing.
Youre Hoping.
I'll credit this - I would have little doubt that you have read 'capital' more often and made a more meticulous study - I have no doubt that you would beat me hands down in a 'whats does it say in the second paragraph of page 123 in volume 1?' competition.
However that you have read it and that you personally accept its every point as incontravertable truth does not make it so, and certainly makes neither the theory nor your points regarding it beyond criticism.
