The one problem I still have difficulty with in Marxian economics is the idea that labor power - the mental and physical capacity of humans to work - is sold, rather than labor (not that I think its incorrect, I just have some problems in understanding it).
Intuitively, it seems like the reasoning for the sale of labor power is that it is the only thing the worker *has*; the thing which possession over transfers to the capitalist. Could someone elaborate why what the laborer sells must be a thing he or she *has* rather than something he or she *does in the future*? Does this have to do with the materialist conception of history? Or could someone explain (Better than Ch 6 of Capital 1 does) why it is labor power rather than labor which is sold if there is a different justification for this idea?
