From: Michael Schauerte (mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Sun Jun 24 2007 - 22:15:34 EDT
Jerry, You read my mind! I touched on that in the short post attached to the longer one yesterday. As I mentined there, the reason to pose the question in terms of "profit" is that this is the way it initially appears when we are confronted with the question, and arriving at the concept of surplus-value as the essence of profit is basically the answer itself. Comradely, Michael On 6/25/07, glevy@pratt.edu <glevy@pratt.edu> wrote: > > > It might be more > > accurate to say: What is the origin of surplus-value? > > > Hi Michael S: > > > I agree that one needs to be clear about the origin of surplus-value. > But, is that the issue being discussed here? I don't think so. The issue > is (I think) whether there can be be exploitation even outside of the > process of surplus value creation. I think there can be, even if it > doesn't conform to Marx's understanding of the meaning of exploitation. > > > For instance, if one worker who does not work is able to lay claim to the > *value* (not surplus value) received by another worker then (depending on > the circumstances) that might be thought of as being exploitive. This > varies, of course, according to the customs and traditions in different > social formations. In the US, it is not so uncommon for adult 'children' > to live with and off of the income of their working-class parents. In > Japan, the tradition is quite different. > > > Rent could be thought of as being exploitive even though it concerns the > *distribution* of value and surplus-value, rather than its production. > Is that not so? Can't it be the case that landlords exploit their > working-class tenants, for instance? > > > One must remember that this is an issue which concerns some complexities > and concrete realities associated with capitalist social formations for > which Marx's writings in _Capital_ are not necessarily a good basis > since _Capital_ is presented at a very high level of abstraction. I think > this is something that the Uno-school grasps with its distinction between > basic theory and stage analysis. Is that not so? > > Still waiting for a fair wind. > > In solidarity, Jerry >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT