From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 15:55:01 EDT
On Sunday 30 May 2004 01:09, Paul Zarembka wrote: > Paul C. > > I don't understand your cryptic comment: > > [Paul Z.] > > > >The first use of the word Value in Volume 1 comes right after describing > > >labor in the abstract. So where do you find in Marx that Value goes > > >beyond a context of labor in the abstract (is indepedent of the > > >commoditization of labor power, thus buying and selling of labor power > > >which he will discuss a bit later)? > > [Paul C.] > > > There is a shift here in your presentation from abstract labour to the > > buying and selling of labour power. If the distinction between labour > > and labour power means anything, your equation can surely not be > > retained. > > Are you claiming that labor, not labor power, is bought and sold? If not, > and labor power -- the capacity or work, labor in the abstract -- is what > is bought and sold, then what's my problem? > > Paul Z. Sorry Paul, now realise that I misread you, I though that you were identifying labour in the abstract with the buying and selling of labour power. A more careful reading of your sentence indicates that I misunderstood you.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 31 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT