From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 14 2007 - 11:55:20 EDT
Hi Ajit: We seem to be held up on some points. I have asked myself why and I think I now know the answer -- for which I thank you. In this dialogue I sought to first define basic terms and make some simple stipulations in the hope that we could put "on the table" what we could agree on before moving to other topics. Thus, I have purposely avoided mentioning and explaining VALUE yet. I was planning on getting to that topic, of course, but not right away. I thought, instead, that we could approach in stages that subject by first discussing related topics (commodities, money, wage-labor, etc.) so that value could be grasped in relation to those topics. > That's one thing but to deduce from it that all the > wealth owned by the capitalist is produced by > wage-labor is wrong. Land is wealth and could be owned > by the capitalist but in no case is produced by > wage-labor. I agree with that: not all wealth is produced by human labor nor by wage-labor. Indeed, that's a point I have made many times on this list. The reason wanted to deal initially with only wealth produced by wage-labor is because I didn't want at this stage of my discussion with you to distinguish wealth from VALUE. I was quite aware of the (over-) simplification that I was making but made that (over-) simplification anyway for the purpose _only_ of discussion. I now see that was a mistake. Thanks. I'll give your other comments some thought. But, more importantly, I'll have to re-think the sequence in which the propositions have been made and WHEN the subjects that will be more controversial related to labor and value are first presented. So, I'm not cutting-off the exchange but rather putting it temporarily on hold. I did say that we would proceed *slowly*, as you will recall. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT