Gilbert writes:
However, by itself it [rejecting the notion that albour-power and money are
commdoities] does not close the resulting gap in Marx's Vol I argument:
specifically, on what basis does one justify Marx's exclusive focus
on the purchase and consumption of labor power under capitalist
production, once one discards the (invalid) claim that surplus value
appropriation must be explained on the basis of commodity price-value
equivalence?
Michael W.
This is too enigmatic for me:
First some genuine pleas for clarification:
What exactly is the 'resulting gap'?
Why do we want to fill it?
In what sense is Marx's focus on LP 'exclusive'?
Labour-power is certainly traded, but in what sense is the extraction of labour
from it in the capitalist labour process 'consumption'? (Or is that just a turn
of phrase?)
And then a question 'with attitude':
After the discard suggested, why can we not account for surplus value
appropriation in terms of the systemic mechanisms ensuring that labour-power
will not be systematically traded unless the capitalist expects the value of the
average product of labour (valued at its price) to sufficiently exceed the wage
rate?
Comradely greetings,
Michael