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

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 10:45:15 EDT

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

Andrew Brown
Re. 'fluidity and creativity of labour': within slave-based society
there are a fixed range of tasks to be done by 'talking animals' and
animals, with land, tools etc. To the extent that slave owners get their
way, fluidity or creativity of labour does not extend beyond these
tasks. 
 
Paul C
-------

I think this underestimates the skills of for example slave architects
and tutors in classical antiquity.

Also you probably overestimate the fluidity of labour in classical
capitalism and underestimate it in classical antiquity.

See the attached paper by Temin

• application/octet-stream attachment: romanlabourmarket.pdf

• Next message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
• Previous message: Andrew Brown: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
• Maybe in reply to: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: "Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?"
• Next in thread: Andrew Brown: "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