====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
SP writes: "One can have wage-labour, capital, capitalism etc without the Marxian law of value ... but without it, it is impossible to talk of exploitation of the working class, since it is impossible to show that profit is produced by labour." ____________________________________ That above means capital can't be capital as its motivator is profit, its reason for existence is the expansion of value. Nobody is disregarding the law of value, but the law of value is DERIVED from and determined by the social relationship of classes, the organization of social labor, the compulsory transformation [through the "freedom" of exchange] of labor into wage-labor. The law of value does not overthrow the social relationship of classes, and the heart of Marx's work is the examination of capitalist accumulation and the immanent tendencies for its overthrow, abolition. So, since no answers to the 4 questions have been submitted-- I'll answer them-- but no matzoh's for you guys. Why is this analysis by Marx different from all other analyses: 1. The law of value is spawned when labor can only present itself as wage-labor, yielding up its time to reproduce both its own subsistence and an additional time, both of which are incorporated into the commodity. Wage-labor is spawned when the laborer has no ability to provide for subsistence, has no USE for his/her own labor other than as a means of exchange for subsistence. Labor, the laborer, and the conditions of labor, which are social, must be separated and opposed to each other. Marx maintains focus on this critical separation and opposition in the Grundrisse, the Economic Manuscripts 1861-1863, and vols 2, and 3 of Capital 2.See answer 1. 3.See answer 1. 4.See answer 1. The problem, as I see it, isn't with Marx's dialectic, it's with the fact that so many have expended so much effort in expanding Marx's dialectic which is about nothing other than development of social labor to include everything-- the whole wide world, galaxy, universe-- so that there's a dialectic of nature, of gravity, of big and small forces, of evolutionary adaptation, of genetic mutation etc etc. etc. I'm not saying there isn't a dialectic of those things, I'll leave it to the physicists and genetic biologists to sort that out. I'm saying Marxism isn't about a dialectic of nature, big and small forces in the universe, evolutionary adaptation, genetic mutation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Palmer" <spalmer...@yahoo.com> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
