Paul, Many thanks -- I accept your correction (very sloppy of me). However I believe that the substance of the remark still remains: that surplus-value-producing-wage labor depends on social preconditions (surplus production) that need to be theorized and engage politically. This is legitimate territory for Marxists. Fraternally, ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 3:36 PM Subject: [OPE-L:4241] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of VolumeIII of Capital > Tony, You confuse surplus-value production with surplus production. Only > wage labor produces value and surplus value. > > I am not very interested in the transformation problem. Many of your > other statements are not objectable to me, either. Paul Z. > > ************************************************************************* > Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at > ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka > > On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, TonyTinker wrote: > > > Steve, Rakesh, and Paul Z: > > > > I hesitate to offer yet another endorsement of Steve Keen's arguments, but > > feel obliged to chime-in after reading Paul Zarembka's demarcation rule > > (suggesting that Steve should take his ball and play elsewhere). Giving > > centrality to the capitalist mode of production (and therefore its > > exploitative class relations) does not lead, inexorably, to attributing > > surplus value production exclusively to wage labor (or make solving the > > transformation problem of overriding importance for Marxists). > > ... >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST