----------
> From: andrew kliman <Andrew_Kliman@classic.msn.com>
> In ope-l 5386, Paul Cockshott defines "exploitation" in such a way that a
> necessary condition for exploitation is that a positive net product
results
> from production. One may do so, of course, but I'm not aware of any
evidence
> that Marx did.
>
> He conceived exploitation in terms of the labor-time that workers work as
> against the labor-time congealed in their wages. According to this
concept,
> if we imagine that the workers' wages are zero, then their surplus-labor
> equals the total amount of time they work. If they work at all, they are
then
> exploited in Marx's sense -- they perform labor without receiving any
> equivalent in return.
Andrew do your really expect us to take this stuff seriously?
You ignore all the other conditions that M set down, that labour
must be productive of value, must be socially necessary.
In your example the labour produced a negative net product so
was clearly not socially necessary - society would have ended up
with more grain if last years harvest had not been resown this year.
>
> The general case is actually very important, because, as Alan Freeman
> stresses, in reality the Hawkins-Simon conditions are not met. 486
computers
> produce 586 computers instead of 486 computers, and so forth. Can
> simultaneism even deal with this?
This is irrelevant in that the product in the case of the computers
is the computational power, not the particular pieces of silicon
on which it is embodied. There is clearly a net surplus of computational
power produced in the semi-conductor/computer industry.