[PEN-L:4401] Marx and irony: a question

[Thomas Kruse]

Since we're on Marx and irony, I've been hoping you all out there can help
me with a passage from Capital I've been puzzling over.

In discussing the production of surplus value (sect. 2, chap. 7), M. notes:

"The circumstance that, on the one hand the daily sustenacne of
labour-power costs only half a day's labour, whiole on the other hand the
very same labour-power can work a dring a whole day, that consequenly the
value of which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for
that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the
the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller."

Is it a "non-injury" by virtue of the fictive equality in the exhcnage
relation ("liberty, equality, and Bentham", as Doug notes)?

Tom

At 07:19 PM 17/03/99 -0500, you wrote:
Thomas Kruse wrote:

Doug  Carrol:

Speaking of irony (you weren´t, Doug), that is what don Carlos was up to
here, no?

On first glance, and even second, the market is that place of
liberty, equality, and Bentham that Marx said it was

I thought so, but evidently our understanding doesn't comport with Carrol's
reading of thousands of pages on the topic.

Doug

Tom Kruse
Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242, 500849
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Marx and irony

[Colin Danby]

Lou again:

 I will continue to use humor in my posts.
 Doug Henwood gets my sense of humor and that's all that matters to me.

Doug has, however, the privilege of knowing you better than most of
us do.  

I will fiercely resist smileys, but I'd point out that mockery 
etc. are only evident as such if your underlying position is plain.  
Pleased though I am to know that Plato is off the hook, I'd still be
grateful for clarification of your views on teleology and stages 
theories, which are important in assessing Marx's views on
imperialism, no?

Literal-mindedly, Colin