30 SOCIAL SCIENTIST 3 The quotation here and in subsequent paragraphs are drawn from Frobel, Heinrichs and Kreye, op cit, Chapter 2, pp. 24-50. The term 'Valorisation", in our view, calls for some comment. Marx, in his discussion on the value aspect of the capitalist labour process, uses two distinct terms, "Verwer-tungsprozess" (traditionally translated as 'the process of creating surplus value') and "Wertbildungsprozess" (translated as 'the process of producing value'). Though in a purely literal sense "Verwertungsprozess" does not correspond to 'the process of creating surplus value' the basis for this translation appears to lie in the fact that Marx used these distinct words to focus on the crucial role of surplus value under capitalist production. To quote Marx: "If we compare the two processes of pioducing value (Wertbildungs-prozess), and of creating surplus value (Verwertungsprozess) we sec that the latter is nothing but the continuation of the former beyond a definite point. If, on the one hand, the process be not carried beyond the point, where the value paid by the capitalist for the labour-power is replaced by an exact equivalent, ills simply a process of producing value (Wertbildungsproze^s); if, on the other hand, it be continued beyond that point, it becomes a process of creating surplus value (Verwertungsprozess)". (See Karl Marx, Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, Vol 1 (translated from the third German Edition by Samuel Moore and Edward Avel ing and editedby Frederick Engels), Moscow. Progress Publishers, 1978, pp 189-190). In more recent translations of Capital (see for example Karl Marx Capital, A Critique ofpolitical Economy Volume One, translated by Ben Fowkes with an introduction by Ernest Mandel, Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, Middlesex, 1975) the term 'Valorisation' has been coined as a translation of the term "Verwertungsprozess". While there need be no objection to this term in itself, it needs to be noted that it can lead to a semantic ambiguity in the sense that it does not clearly distinguish between the process of producing surplus value (which is based on wage labour) and the process of 'unlim ted appropriation of abstract wealth in the form of money' (which need not be based on wage labour). In fact this semantic ambiguity is used by Forbel at al to push through a conception of what constitutes capitalism which by no means corresponds to that of Marx. A word of thanks is due to Anil Bhatti for help in clarifying this matter. 4 Th'.s should not be confused with Marx's conception of the formal subsump-tion of labour to capital, which has as its essential features: (i) "The pure money relationship between the man who appropriates the surplus labour and the man who yields it up"; and (ii) from the point of view of the worker "his objective conditions of labour (the means of production) and his subjective conditions of labour (the means of subsistence) confront him as capital, as the monopoly of the buyer of his labour-power. The more completely these conditions of labour are mobilised against him as alien property, the more effectively the formal relationship between capital and wage-labour is established." See "Results of the Immediate Process of Production", Appendix to Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One, Penguin Books: Middlesex, 1976. pp 1025-1026. 5 Refer Frobel, Heinrichs and Kreye, op cit. Chapter 1, pp 1-23. 6 For a useful survey of the evidence on the exports of manufactures by the TJDCs, see Sanjaya Lall, "Exports of Manufactures by Newly Industrialised Countries: A Survey of Recent Trends", Economic and Political Weekly, Bombay, December 6 and 13, 1980. 7 Ibid, pp 2055-2056. 8 /AiW,p2104. 9 See Ajthur Lewis, "Ihe Rate of Growth of World Trade, 1830-1973", in Socn Grassnian and Enk Lundberg (ed.), Tfie World Economic Order. Past and