Terry defines exploitation as the exploitation of labor. This makes it
true by definition that corn, iron, etc. cnnot be exploited, but begs the
question posed by the general exploittaion theorem in a gross and obvious way.
He also insists that labor power is not a commodity in Marx's model. This
is wrong. See, e.g., Capital I, chap. 6 ("The sale and purchase of labor
power."): "The possessor of money does find such a special commodity on
the market: the capacity for labor, in other words, labor power" (Penguiin
ed., p, 270). In fact it is absolutely crucial to Marx's model that labor
power be a commodity on the market like any other (except that M thinks it
has the special feature that it produces more value that is required to
produce it). The value of labor power is the wage, in the model. What is
determined by class struggl and the rate of exploitation is not this, at
least not in the first approximation, but the amount of surplus value or
profit (identitical for rough purposes and in first approximation).
--Justin
On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Terrence Mc Donough wrote:
> Justin is wrong about the exploitability of corn. Sure this is
> mathematically possible in some models. This does not mean it is
> really possible in the social world. Exploitation occurs _by
> definition_ when one group lives off of the labour of another. To
> envision exploitation taking place on the basis of surpluses produced
> by corn is to fall prey to another form of commodity fetishism.
> Levins and Lewonton point out that it is mathematically possible
> using a production function to disentangle and quantify the respective
> contributions of mortar and bricks to a wall. A moments reflection
> demonstrates this is impossible when confronted with an actual wall.
>
> Marx contributes to this confusion by identifying labour power (as
> opposed to labour) as a commodity. But labour power while sold is
> NOT PRODUCED FOR SALE. It is not a commodity. It's value is not
> determined through circulation on the market. Its value is determined
> more or less directly in class struggle with capital. Since it is
> not a commodity like corn, it cannot by 'exploited' in the same sense
> that corn can even within an abstract model with physical surpluses.
>
> Terry McDonough
