[Xmca-l] Re: Does an exchange generate a profit?

[Harshad Dave]

Greg,


Here I reproduce the words of your reply and put my views.

[Your words in black font. My reply in blue font]



What is meant by "profit"? Is this defined simply as "mutual beneficence"
or is it something more like "surplus value" or even "surplus capital"?



[I talk about *profit* that has been addressed by Marx in the “theory of
surplus value”. It is rightly explained in *theory of surplus value* that
*profit* is nothing but an unpaid labor only. Here I want to raise a point
that there are simple exchanges between/among two or more parties for
different commodities also and that might generate a *profit*.]



What you describe Harshad is precisely what Adam Smith describes and what
becomes the basis for the ethical argument for capitalism - the truck,
barter, and trade that is mutually beneficial.



[I shall try to clarify my views against your comment as above. Let us take
five cases as follow,

There are two parties P1 and P2. There are two commodities in the process
of exchange cmdt1 and cmdt2 produced by P1 and P2 respectively.



1. P1 and P2 produce cmdt1 and cmdt2 respectively and they consume them.
There is no exchange.



2. P1 and P 2 enter an exchange process. They consume the received
commodity. They do not exchange received commodity again with third party.



3. P1 receives cmdt2 and consumes it. P2 does not consume cmdt1 but going
to exchange it with third party.



4. P1 is a producer of cmdt1. P2 is not the consumer of cmdt1 but going to
exchange cmdt1 with third party.



 5. P1 and P2 are not producers of the commodity (cmdt1 and cmdt2) but they
command them before exchange. Neither P1 nor P2 is going to consume the
commodity cmdt2 and cmdt1 respectively received after exchange process.
Both the parties exchange the received commodity with third party.



If you analyze the above cases, the case at sr. number 4 is taken to
explain the “theory of surplus value”.



Ultimately, my question is targeted if other cases generate *profit* or not
(leaving case at sr. No. 1).





Marx says "yes, but... (power)".

[I request you (if possible) to give me further link/address where I can
read the detail of above phrase]



David Kirshner, I love your suggestion about the importance of familial
relations, but I wonder if you would limit familial relations in the
traditional way it is often limited in the West to biological relations?



Or might you and I be family?



-        Greg

Harshad Dave



On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:31 AM Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Harshad,
> What is meant by "profit"? Is this defined simply as "mutual beneficence"
> or is it something more like "surplus value" or even "surplus capital"?
>
> What you describe Harshad is precisely what Adam Smith describes and what
> becomes the basis for the ethical argument for capitalism - the truck,
> barter, and trade that is mutually beneficial. Marx says "yes, but...
> (power)".
>
> David Kirshner, I love your suggestion about the importance of familial
> relations, but I wonder if you would limit familial relations in the
> traditional way it is often limited in the West to biological relations?
>
> Or might you and I be family?
>
> -greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:41 AM David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, according to two criteria:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The time/labor taken by one party to produce the exchange unit exceeds
>> that of the other party who can then be said to be making a profit.
>>
>> 2. Production time is equal, but capital investment / skill level
>> training demanded by one party exceeds that of the other who therefore can
>> be seen as profiting off the investment of the other.
>>
>>
>>
>> Along with the original question
>>
>> “Does this exchange process have possibility to generate a profit on
>> either side?”
>>
>> One might also ask,
>>
>> “What determines if this exchange is perceived by either party as being
>> an unequal exchange (i.e., as yielding a profit for one party)?”
>>
>>
>>
>> A critical element is history: If one party demands an increase from what
>> has historically been the exchange rate, this might be seen by the other
>> party as reaping unfair profits.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the only way to avoid the possibility of perceptions of
>> unfairness is when familial relations exist between the two parties, and
>> the wellbeing of each to the other is as important as the wellbeing of
>> self.
>>
>>
>>
>> An alternative/variation of this at the societal level is an established
>> class ideology in which unequal benefit is seen as natural and/or as
>> necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wish I knew more about this, and hope others will enlighten.
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *On Behalf Of *Harshad Dave
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 24, 2019 8:23 AM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Does an exchange generate a profit?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here I present one example.
>>
>> There is a fisherman living in a habitation. Generally, he catches fishes
>> and exchanges part of the quantity against wheat with a farmer living in
>> the habitation.
>>
>> “Does this exchange process have possibility to generate a profit on
>> either side?”
>>
>> Harshad Dave
>>
>> .
>>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190525/3a576002/attachment.html