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.
Btw Paul, You are right about machine / machine power, of course. The relevant parallel I wanted to make is between machine-power / machine contribution, on the one hand, and labour-power / labour, on the other. For some reason I often make that mistake. Andy ------------ Paul the correspondence should not be machine/machine power to labour/labour power. If one wants to do that the correspondance should be (machine/machine power) goes to (worker/labour power).
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, (continued)
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Fri 22 Apr 2005, 21:47 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Mon 25 Apr 2005, 11:58 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Mon 25 Apr 2005, 12:56 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Mon 25 Apr 2005, 13:52 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Mon 25 Apr 2005, 14:39 GMT
- [OPE-L] The Contradictions of a Contrarian: Andre Gunder Frank by Jeff Sommers, Rakesh Bhandari Mon 25 Apr 2005, 17:06 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Paul Cockshott Mon 25 Apr 2005, 21:39 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Tue 26 Apr 2005, 13:03 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?, Andrew Brown Thu 28 Apr 2005, 10:27 GMT