From: Michael Schauerte (mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Thu Jun 21 2007 - 20:38:10 EDT
Yes, I agree with Ajit that gaining an essential understanding of the wage-form is an integral part of explaining the origin of surplus-value (and hence profit). My point was that Jurriaan's inclusion of every sort of case where a person profits at another's expense as "exploitation" does not explain the *creation* of surplus-value from the perspective of society as a whole, only its passing from one individual's pocket to that of another person. This is the question that his all-inclusive approach to the concept of exploitation fails to address, as far as I can tell. And Marx uses the term "exploitation" in a specific or "narrow" sense--even though I'm sure he recognized its colloquial usage--because this is the question that he was addressing. Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT