From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 19:42:50 EDT
Hi Ian, A quick response to a point you made. > Because if this is the crucial distinction then it appears to follow > that human workers in a dictatorial economy of state-owned firms that > commands and directs what jobs they perform and pays them not in cash > but in real goods are not the cause of surplus-value; hence are not > exploited and have no grounds for complaint; after all the > wage-capital relation, which on this definition is constituitive of > the production of surplus-value, has been abolished, therefore > surplus-value is not pumped out of the producers. Your hences do not follow. If a class does not produce surplus value it does not follow that they are not exploited. A class can produce a surplus _product_, rather than surplus value, and still be exploited. Wherever there is a class society, there is class exploitation. Certainly feudal serfs produced a surplus product and were exploited. This doesn't mean, though, that the *form* of their exploitation was the same as that for wage-workers or that the surplus product that they produced took the *form* of surplus value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT