[ show plain text ]
Re Geert 2270, my 2272, Jerry 2273, my 2279
Further thoughts while awaiting Geert's clarification.
Reference to VFS shows me
1. I was right and Jerry was wrong on 'appropriation'
2. while the 'elimination' argument appears, it is not really relied upon
3 becaue rent is viewed as a reward for monopoly even tho' land comes 'from
outside' as a non-reproducible
4 and the key argument has to do with the claim labour power does not
represent value added and therefore its use is likely to be creating rather
then transferring value.
Conclusion: In spite of Geert's EMail claim to be Marxist his theory is the
converse!
a) Marx's 'one factor' is labour. This is *not* Geert's, for
b) Geert's one factor is valueless labour power, something Marx implicitly
dismissed when he said labour power is a commodity like any other i.e.
represents previously created value. Marx seems to have thought of the
domestic sphere as a 'black box' within the overall capitalist
reproduction, into which values go and out of which value comes, and, not
unreasonably, equated them.
To put my point in the most polemical terms possible, Geert reverses Marx's
shift of attention from the sale and purchase of labour power to the inner
abode of production, and he concentrates instead on studying the
*circulation* of the inputs. (Of course it does not follow he is wrong
because unmarxist!)
To be sure in other parts of VFS we find 'labour' creates value but IMO the
above 'derivaton' of LTV is inconsistent with this for it seems to show
'labour power' creates value.
Or am I being over-subtle?
Chris A
P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
<cjarthur@waitrose.com>
but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST