From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Oct 27 2005 - 09:30:12 EDT
Jerry, You seem to be saying variable capital of a particular value is not 'laid out' in order to purchase labour power? But that somehow until the labour power is purchased ( with something of no value?) it has no value, and does not work within a social relation?... Don't we have to start with the assumption that the relation exists and then analyse its movement, rather than waiting for the individual 'blessing' of the market ? Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General > > What is > > striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart from > > clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate > > the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really > > quite striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned > > class, and to regard the value relation as non existant before the > > individual sale or sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the astute > > accountants must do) that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of > > appraisal - seems to me to be quite, let us say, 'odd'. > > Paul B: > > It is your reasoning above which I find to be quite odd. To say that > value is actualized in exchange can not in any conceivable way be > taken as a denial of class exploitation. To begin with, let us remember > that the actual presence of exploitation of the working class requires > exchange, i.e. the sale of the commodity labour-power, _before_ > that exploitation commences. Indeed, it is a precondition for > exploitation. To say that value is actualized in exchange is not a > separation of the concept of value from exploitation: rather, it is > a _linking_ of value to use-value and the value-form. > > In solidarity, Jerry > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 00:00:04 EDT