From: Claus Magno (cmgermer@UFPR.BR)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 14:50:21 EDT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Arthur" <cjarthur@WAITROSE.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:46 AM Subject: Re: (OPE-L) is value labour? > Claus is right that L is V may be different from V is L. But again in the > Grundrisse Marx says that in value labour produces 'the being of its not-being', which is tantamount to Value IS not-labour. See p. 454, repeated in 1863 - see MECW 34 p. 202. I have used these quotes to some extent in my book and more fully in a paper called Capital and Labour published in Greece. I will send you (and anyone else who requests it) an English version separately. Chis, in the quote of Grundrisse which you mention Marx is referring to alienated labour and its relation to its product, which belongs not to him but to the capitalist. Thus, it seems to me that this analysis cannot be confronted with the analysis of labour as such in relation to its product, i.e., it doesn't contradict the concept of value being (objectified) labour in the sense I wrote in my previous post. Labour as such objectifies itself (both concrete and abstract) in the commodity it produces, while alienated labour, as Marx says in this quote, "posits itself objectively, but it posits this, its objectivity, as its own not-being or as the being of its not-being" (p. 454). comradely, Claus.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT