Jerry pointed out to me off-list that (a) this was a post from Mike, not Jerry and (b) perhaps I should not give such a dismissive reply. My apologies to Jerry, and I'll pose one more question in reply to Michael. Imagine that we could find a professor of linguistics who had not read any Marx, and we gave her this paragraph to read. Do you think she would categorically dismiss my construction, and say that yours was the only justified interpretation? Steve For reference, the paragraph is: The past labor that is embodied in the labor power, and the living labor that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. *The former determines the exchange-value of the labor power, the latter is its use-value.* The fact that half a [working] day's labor is necessary to keep the laborer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labor power, and the value which that labor power creates in the labor process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labor power... What really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value than it has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labor power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the 'eternal laws' of the exchange of commodities. *The seller of labor power, like the seller of any other commodity, realizes its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value.* (capital I, p. 188.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT