value . Thus , TSSI ’ s claim to have returned Marx ’ s analysis to wholeness and an analytical totality , casting-off all charges of internal inconsistency against Marx , is blatantly incorrect and screams of ideological bias , from the get go . For example , according to Andrew Kliman , “ TSSI deduces Marx ’ s conclusion that surplus labor is the exclusive source of profit — in every case , without exception ”[ 1 ]. This is one of the many fundamental premises of TSSI . However , Marx stated , within the logical confines of Capital ( Volume 1 ) that
Capitalist production … in capitalist agriculture is a progress in art , not only of robbing the worker , but of robbing the soil . Capitalist production … only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process production by simultaneously sapping the original sources of all wealth , the soil and the worker .[ 2 ]
Essentially , according to Marx , wealth , i . e ., surplus value , is generated through sapping the soil and workers of value . The soil and the worker are , for Marx , the sole founts of surplus value , that is , for any value , not just the exploitation of labor-time . Consequently , this flies directly in the face of TSSI , but more importantly , this flies directly in the face of Marx , himself , who continually repeats throughout Das Capital that “ labor is the source of all wealth ”[ 3 ], i . e ., value . The same applies for TSSI , wherefore , repeatedly Andrew Kliman , reminds us that “ value is [ solely ] determined by labor-time ”[ 4 ]. This is an internal-logical-inconsistency in Marx ’ s analysis , which invariably skews the numbers and his holy trinity of economic equalities , pertaining to the law of value . As a result , once again , we have an internal-logical contradiction , i . e ., a logical inconsistency , within Marx ’ s analysis , which rattles the Marxist law of value to the core .
This internal inconsistency rattles Marx ’ s labor theory of value because when values , i . e ., wealth , escape the strict confines of labor-time calculations , the Marxist trinity of economic equalities can go awry . It is for this reason that Kliman has reduced Marx ’ s law of value to the strict confines of labor-time in the sense that all sorts of unquantifiable values , derived from the land and soil , devoid of labor-time , can magically augment values and prices , by seeping into the capitalist-system , unannounced and unquantified . Contrary to Kliman , and in line with Marx , it is more appropriate to conceive that capital makes labor and the earth produce , and labor and the earth produce surplus value , due to the fact , contrary to TSSI , the source of surplus value , by Marx ’ s own statements , is both the earth and labor-power , not strictly labor-power , itself . This explains why total values and total prices do not equate , or could ever equate , unless huge TSSI arbitrary readjustments are applied to Marx ’ s analysis and premises , beginning with his fundamental premise that the soil , i . e ., the natural environment , does produce value , value which in some instances is devoid of any labor-time .
For example , in Capital ( Volume 2 ), when Marx was looking for the original source of surplus value found in the market , i . e ., the circulation sphere , which could account for the paradox that capitalists receive more value in return to what they inject into the market , on a yearly basis , discovered that the extra surplus value in the market , which is devoid of labor-time , originates from Gold . Namely , that the mineral itself , gold , like labor-power , was throwing more value into circulation , i . e ., the market , than the value it was being assigned in return , by capitalists , through the calculation of labor-time within gold production . Meaning , that gold