James C.W. Ahiakpor wrote:  
> Thus, I don't think I   
> have misrepresented Marx's argument, as Rod alleges.  True, I have now   
> included congealed labor in constant capital as part of the   
> withholding from labor.  But that's just taking a dynamic view of the   
> "exploitation" process, the type of analysis Rod earlier wished I   
> would do instead of a "static state" version.  
  
  
  
I misunderstand nothing. You repeat the misrepresentation again in the   
last sentence. Dynamic or static doesn't matter. Depreciation is not   
part of surplus anywhere in Marx's writings. Just admit the mistake and   
move on.  
  
Rod Hay