From: ope-admin@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu
Date: Mon Mar 12 2007 - 05:38:57 EDT
---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory? From: "Riccardo Bellofiore" <riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it> Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 3:49 am To: "OPE-L" <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 17:07 -0700 11-03-2007, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >but my point is that it does not follow from the historical specificity of >abstract labor that labor is exploited under capitalism. Or perhaps it >does, but I don't see the argument. in fact the stress is on the EXTRACTION of abstract labour, as LIVING labour. a point which is specific to Marx. it is exactly where Marx's scientificity is unique and unparalled. > > >It must be extracted from "labour power" of free subject (a >> ONLY capitalist notion) AFTER the labour market, extracting living >> labour from workers. All this is very specific. No work, no value >> and surplus value. Before capitalism you could have said: well, >> technology is stationary, so more output more effort. > >I don't understand the importance of the stationary nature of technology >in your argument. what can I say? sorry. > > > Not so in >> capitalism, which is quite "dynamic", so there is no reason to >> attribute the surplus to workers. Actually, the surplus as such, as >> a use value dymension, is due to capital, not to labour! > >Due to capital goods given the scientific knowledge embodied therein or to >capitalists in their supervisory rather than coordiation functions? Not >following the argument. I see. I also leave it there for now riccardo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT