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.
Hi Jerry > Your hences do not follow. If a class does not produce surplus > value it does not follow that they are not exploited. A class can > produce a surplus _product_, rather than surplus value, and still be > exploited. Wherever there is a class society, there is class exploitation. Jerry you are right to pick me up on this point.You have exposed a muddle in my thinking that has generated some sloppy sentences and has very much detracted from what I was trying to say. My apologies to Nicky also. I now need to consider where the confusion lies and try to make my point again. My last 4 paragraphs I think are ok though. Best wishes, -Ian.
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Nicola Taylor Thu 07 Apr 2005, 14:01 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Rakesh Bhandari Thu 07 Apr 2005, 15:42 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Ian Wright Thu 07 Apr 2005, 22:23 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Thu 07 Apr 2005, 23:42 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Ian Wright Fri 08 Apr 2005, 01:49 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Fri 08 Apr 2005, 11:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Ian Wright Fri 08 Apr 2005, 20:25 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Gerald_A_Levy Sat 09 Apr 2005, 13:02 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Philip Dunn Sat 09 Apr 2005, 21:01 GMT