Both labour and nature can produce things of value. But it is society that gives
a value to things. It assigns a value to things appropriated from nature and to
transformations made to those things by labour.
Marx claims that the value of a thing will be proportional to the labour socially
necess
I think I am out of my depth in this. Five or six years ago I thought I had
thought through a lot of this stuff (and maybe I had), and even published a
bit on it, but I am running on hazy memories; it's not quite as bad as when I
got down my old books on quantum theory and statistical mechanic
Not quite, Jason. The waterfall does not create value on its own. It only
amplies the productivity of labor.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> . If we define value as
> embodied labor, this is correct. But perhaps we shouldn't. What the waterfall
> example shows is that not all profits come from expl
In a message dated 6/11/00 2:14:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The waterfall reduces the value of the goods. The quantity of labor in
each good
produced with the waterfall is lower. Whether it produces extra surplus
value
would depend on what happens next. If co
Book reviewed:
Gary Gereffi and Miguel Korzeniewicz, eds.
COMMODITY CHAINS AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM. Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger, 1994. xiv + 334 pp. ISBN
0-313-28914-X, $59.95 (hardcover); ISBN
0-275-94573-1, $22.95 (paper).
Reviewed by
Wilma A. Du
Tom: You might find George Lakoff to be an interesting kind of guy for a
linguist / semanticist. Try these links:
specific paper: http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
General info: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rsauzier/Lakoff.html
Tom Walker wrote:
> All this talk about "appropriating langu
At 12:25 PM 06/11/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><< My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
> in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
> of the
Hi Chris:
>The problem for the guests at Ohio State University was they were a
>small minority
Yes -- perhaps only about 50 graduating seniors walked out, while
about another 30 held up red placards ("Struggle, Not Surrender,"
"Watts -- Act Affirmatively," "Watts' 'Diversity'?" "OSU Powered by
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Oh it might. I think people are semi-conscious that advertising does
> strange things to their desires, and feel vaguely guilty or defensive
> about being consumed by shopping. Witness the whole discourse of
> "addication" around consumption ("shopaholic").
Now, now. You
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Those who suffer from hallucinations generally know that the hallucination
>is one even when they cannot resist having it. Friends who suffer from
>"voices" speak fairly casually of attempts to ignore them. They never
>believe that the "voices" are "out there." I asked one woma
The Subject line could also be, Back to Nike and Microsoft
Timework Web wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote,
>
> Furthermore, (and this speaks to Doyle
> Saylor's comment also) I see nothing remotely emancipatory in the above
> passages' exhaltation of "psychotic" as something which "keeps us intact
>
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20114] Re: Re: Re: Re: As the fetish implodes
Greetings Economists,
In response to my comments on anti-disabled thinking in Tom Walkers recent posting Brad DeLong writes,
Brad DeLong,
Do you think it's fun to have an obsessive-compulsive disorder, or to
have major depress
The waterfall reduces the value of the goods. The quantity of labor in each good
produced with the waterfall is lower. Whether it produces extra surplus value
would depend on what happens next. If competition drives prices down toward the
new values, then presumably the workers will exchange a
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:54:54 -0400
From: Mine Aysen Doyran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Long Twentieth Century
Review, Giovanni Arrighi, _The Long Twentieth Century_
(Verso, 1994)
by Immanuel Wallerstein
In a message dated 6/10/00 5:51:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< My reading of the discussion of the waterfall -- and Marx's theory of rent
in general -- is that the waterfall "creates" surplus-value _for the owner
of the waterfall_ but not for society as a whole. On
Following the usual pattern, once the notably-short US public attention
span has elapsed, after popular support for the air-war is no longer
needed, history gets rewritten:
Questions Surface Over NATO's Revised Take on the War in Kosovo
Balkans: Official accounts have been rewritten or contrad
>
>Doyle
>Needless suffering is key to your excluding a person with a
>disability from your concept of able bodied participation in the
>social whole. Every worker needlessly suffers, but disabled people
>are the ones that need to change. Your comment is almost Victorian
>in patronizing tone
I wrote,
> Camouflaged fish that swim blythly into the maw of the predator on the
> pretext that their camouflage gives them immunity are indeed "something
> else altogether . . ." A meal.
Correction: I should have said a snack.
Tom Walker
Doug Henwood wrote,
> Hmm, Klein says brands appeal to utopian impulses, and also leave
> companies extremely vulnerable to political agitation (if they
> traffic in image, tarnishing that image can really get their
> attention). But I don't recall the resistance-in-submission argument.
First, I
I got this useful history of the US green written by Lou Proyect on the day
that the ASGP's Annie Goeke unsubbed from the CrashList, seemingly because
the ongoing discussion there about capital accumulation and its limits was
overloading her inbox. Pity; I'd planned to ask her about the necessity
Title: Re: [PEN-L:20109] Re: Re: As the fetish implodes
Greetings Economists,
Rob Schaap writes,
I just don't get this stuff, Doyle. To say obsessive-compulsive disorders are bad is not to say that people stricken with it are bad. If I call brand-marketing a cancer in society, I'm hardly c
21 matches
Mail list logo
