> So I think
>I understand part at least of what Doug means when he insists on
>using the term "political."
What I'm talking about is the origin of surplus value in exploitation, and the origin of the phenomenal categories of profit, interest, and rent as being a division of SV in the real world (a division that involves an intra-capitalist power struggle). Those seem like facts to me, but of course I'm biased (along with being superficial).
I'm still convinced, despite all the claims of superior knowledge to the contrary, that the attempts to mathematize this model, are driven by one of two intentions, acknolwedged or not: 1) convincing the bourgeoisie of the rightness of Marxism, a doomed project if there ever was one, or 2) proving the inevitable demise of capitalism, which if not a doomed project isn't exactly looking like a blessed one.
Doug