Gill Skillman wrote on May 24 in [ope-l: 2346]:
It strikes me that this supports my interpretation, which is to treat labor
power as a capacity to labor (from which labor is
problematically extracted) rather than as a commodity. If labor
power is understood to be a commodity by definition, there is no
basis for such "endless struggle"--indeed, the phrase has no
meaning, just as "endless effort to make celery a vegetable" would
have no meaning. Gil
Chai-on:
--------
I do not think there could be no basis for the class struggle for the
reason that labor-power is taken to be a commodity.
Labor power, unlike other commodities, are not containing direct labor
along with indirect labor. Those commodities that contain indirect labor
only (eg. relics which are no longer produced currently) are to be
valued in accordance with market situation (which I call represented
labor), and so have no relation with embodied labor-value.
Such commodities that do not have any relation with embodied labor-
value have their prices dependent on the negotiations between sells
and buyers. Since their buyers have a force against the sellers, the
sellers, too may well want to exert such a force in the negotiation.
A commodity is anything that is traded with money. Labor-power, too
cannot be an exception in my humble opinion. Land, too is a commodity
no matter whether it is produced by human labor or not, and whether it is
done by the capitalist method or not.
In solidarity,
Chai-on