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

[Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most of the sources I have read concur on the point that
the Anglo Saxon form of slavery was uniquely brutal and
dehumanising. Marx was clearly very strongly influenced
by Cairns analysis of Southern slavery, and Cairns views
thus get through indirectly to contemporary Marxism.

The risk is that one then makes mistaken judgements about
other periods based on this.

Don't get me wrong though, I thing Cairn's work a brilliant
piece of political economy. 

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andrew Brown
Sent: 20 April 2005 15:58
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

Thanks Paul,

Slave architects? Certainly not what I had in mind! Don't sound much
like 'talking animals' either!

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Cockshott
Sent: 20 April 2005 15:45
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

Andrew Brown
Re. 'fluidity and creativity of labour': within slave-based society
there are a fixed range of tasks to be done by 'talking animals' and
animals, with land, tools etc. To the extent that slave owners get their
way, fluidity or creativity of labour does not extend beyond these
tasks. 
 
Paul C
-------

I think this underestimates the skills of for example slave architects
and tutors in classical antiquity.

Also you probably overestimate the fluidity of labour in classical
capitalism and underestimate it in classical antiquity.

See the attached paper by Temin