OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


Well, mine ends up recognising labour time as the fundamental unit of cost in any society. And it recognises the product as an embodiment of labour in any society.

 

Then the inversion of capitalism turns ‘embodied’ labour into ‘congealed’ abstract labour and it is obvious that SNLT is its measure. This often tends to be denied in systematic dialectics despite, for example, Chris’s excellent ‘Dialectics of Labour’ from which I draw quite a lot (e.g. labour as concrete universal). Am much closer to Chris than others on these matters – perhaps my differences with Chris stem more from other aspects such as the basics of materialist dialectics whereby exchange value is clear evidence of a power and hence *must* have a material grounding.

 

Andy

 

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nicola Taylor
Sent:
07 April 2005 17:06
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

 

Andy,

 

actually, an argument has been presented many times.  Have you seriously read Reuten, Williams and Chris Arthur on the distinction between labour and labour power?

 

How is your conception of labour (and labour power) different from theirs?

 

Nicky

Andrew Brown <A.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Rakesh, Nicky and all,

Rakesh is correct imo, with his comment below on Nicky's post. What I am
trying to do is answer Rakesh's question. Hegel-inspired systematic
dialecticians have never managed this, imo, in part because of their
lack of clarity on the nature of labour and labour-power (or maybe just
their disagreement with what I take to be the correct conception of
'labour')

Many thanks,

Andy




>(imo) Marx's key insight into the social relations of capital is
>that workers trade their labour-power freely. i.e. the crucial
>distinction is not between humans, land, donkeys etc but between
>living *labour* and the *labour power* purchased for wages.


And why is the the crucial distinction? An argument has yet to be
presented.

Rakesh

 


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]