Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 09:19:23 EDT

Next message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Previous message: Howard Engelskirchen: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> For the USA there is a necessary qualification on freedom of
> mobility  in the 19th Century.

Hi Howard,

Agreed.  However, ...

The geographic movement of  wage-workers was not limited
_because_ they were wage-workers.  The movement of slaves
was limited _because_ they were slaves.

On another point:
It does not logically follow that just because the expansion of
capitalism in some parts of the world happened through the
use of non-wage labor that therefore that form of non-wage
labor was _necessary_ for the expansion of capitalism:
_eventually_   capitalism would have expanded to those areas
even without bonded labour.

In solidarity, Jerry

Next message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Previous message: Howard Engelskirchen: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
In reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Next in thread: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT