Re: on money

[Paul Zarembka <zarembka@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul C.

I don't understand your cryptic comment:

[Paul Z.]
> >The first use of the word Value in Volume 1 comes right after describing
> >labor in the abstract.  So where do you find in Marx that Value goes
> >beyond a context of labor in the abstract (is indepedent of the
> >commoditization of labor power, thus buying and selling of labor power
> >which he will discuss a bit later)?

[Paul C.]
> There is a shift here in your presentation from abstract labour to the
> buying and selling of labour power. If the distinction between labour
> and labour power means anything, your equation can surely not be
> retained.

Are you claiming that labor, not labor power, is bought and sold? If not,
and labor power -- the capacity or work, labor in the abstract -- is what
is bought and sold, then what's my problem?

Paul Z.