In response to the following comments by Rakesh, >> Marx's method is not logico historical. Marx is NOT in vol I >> attempting to explain why one form of surplus value production came >> to dominate historically over other forms. He assumes the free wage >> labor form. This is already the mystery that confounds the free >> wage-laboring class in its daily life. >> >> And the exploitation of free wage labor does not depend on violations >> of PVE--you seem not to think that this is a theoretical >> clarification of the greatest importance--but Marx never says that >> the exploitation of free wage labor is in fact carried out in >> accordance with PVE. Paul C writes in 6411: > >I think you are quite right here. He might be right, but these comments (to the extent they accurately reflect Marx's account) in no way affect the sense of my critique, which is of the clearly logical argument Marx does in fact make in arriving at the commodification of labor power as the basis for exploitation of labor under the capitalist mode of production. Re the second passage above, *of course* it's true "Marx never says that the exploitation of free wage labor is in fact carried out in accordance with PVE." I've never suggested otherwise. Re the first passage, I never assert Marx's overall method is "logico-historical," whatever that means. But he does indisputably make logical claims, whatever his overall method is, and these claims can therefore be subjected to standard logical tests of validity. I'm surprised that any Marxist would suggest otherwise. Is it really being suggested that we should disregard Marx's claims of drawing valid inferences from his own premises? That these assertedly valid inferences should instead be treated as opinions, prophecies, or empirical generalizations? Striking. And on the specific point, I've never suggested that Marx is "attempting to explain why one form of surplus value production came to dominate historically over other forms," so that point is irrelevant to my critique. However, it is manifestly *false* that Marx simply "assumes the free wage labor form," as even a cursory rereading of the beginning of Chapter 6 will confirm. Finally, if it were true that Marx simply "assumes the free wage labor form," rather than justifying it analytically, then the answer to my original question is clear: on analytical grounds at least, the commodification of labor power is *incidental* to the process of exploitation under the capitalist mode of production, since there is by this representation no theoretical reason for believing otherwise. But Rakesh's answer to my question indicates a quite different opinion. Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST