IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
re: Steve's 5654
The problem is simply put Rakesh:
If you believe that commodities can be resolved into labour and labour alone, then you believe in magic.
But Steve no one is saying that; of course there will remain some natural residue which is not objectified labor. Marx never said otherwise. In fact in both Capital 1 and the the Critique of the Gotha Programme he emphasized that wealth is the product of both labor and nature...as you surely know But the value of commodities can indeed be resolved into their value or objectified labor alone. So even if we cannot isolate a moment at which pure labor operated without means of production, what are we saying other than than labor always operates with objectified labor? There is only one element in the causal process of value--objectified abstract labor.
Don't understand the objection.
Yours, Rakesh
- [OPE-L:5706] Re: Re: Re: total surplus-value in Marx's theory, (continued)
- [OPE-L:5706] Re: Re: Re: total surplus-value in Marx's theory, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari Thu 31 May 2001, 22:04 GMT
- [OPE-L:5674] Re: Re: Reduction (hegelians), Ajit Sinha Sun 27 May 2001, 08:29 GMT
- [OPE-L:5667] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reduction, Gil Skillman Fri 25 May 2001, 21:44 GMT
- [OPE-L:5668] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reduction, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari Sat 26 May 2001, 00:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:5659] Re: Re: Re: Re: Reduction, Steve Keen Thu 24 May 2001, 00:39 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:5660] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reduction, Steve Keen Thu 24 May 2001, 00:39 GMT
- [OPE-L:5639] the infinite regression critique, Gerald_A_Levy Tue 22 May 2001, 12:46 GMT
- [OPE-L:5642] Re: the infinite regression critique, Allin Cottrell Tue 22 May 2001, 15:33 GMT
- [OPE-L:5651] Re: Re: the infinite regression critique, Ajit Sinha Wed 23 May 2001, 11:14 GMT