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.
> I don't think this need be a worry. Some capitalist owners do perform > socially necessary labour and add value to the product, irrespective of > the fact that they control all the firm's revenue and give themselves a > big slice of the pie. The point is that an individual can still perform > useful > work whether or not they hold capitalist property (how could it be > otherwise?) Of course, mere ownership does not create value, although > it allows control of it. Hi Ian. The distinction between productive and unproductive labor is not based on which individuals (and segments of classes) perform "useful" labor. If capitalists are productive of surplus value then the whole theory of surplus value collapses, imo, since if everyone is exploited then no one is exploited. In solidarity, Jerry
- (OPE-L) indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, (continued)
- (OPE-L) indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, gerald_a_levy Thu 06 Nov 2003, 14:14 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, paul cockshott Thu 06 Nov 2003, 15:13 GMT
- (OPE-L) indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value, gerald_a_levy Thu 06 Nov 2003, 16:04 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dynamic value and natural price, Ian Wright Fri 07 Nov 2003, 21:51 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: Dynamic value and natural price, gerald_a_levy Fri 07 Nov 2003, 22:01 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dynamic value and natural price, Ian Wright Fri 07 Nov 2003, 23:01 GMT
- (OPE-L) accounting for productive and unproductive labour, gerald_a_levy Sat 08 Nov 2003, 13:30 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: Dynamic value and natural price, Paul Cockshott Mon 10 Nov 2003, 10:36 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: Dynamic value and natural price, Philip Dunn Mon 10 Nov 2003, 19:04 GMT