Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

[Paul Bullock <paulbullock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

You seem to be  saying  variable capital of a particular value is not 'laid
out' in order to purchase labour power? But that somehow until the labour
power is purchased ( with something of no value?) it has no value, and does
not work within a social relation?... Don't we have to start with the
assumption that the relation exists and then analyse its movement, rather
than waiting for the individual 'blessing' of the market ?

Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>
To: <OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General


> > What is
> > striking about the 'value is only value' after 'sale', school (apart
from
> > clearly reflecting a shop keeper mentality) is that it seems to separate
> > the concept of value from that of exploitation in the workplace. Really
> > quite striking! Value as capital is wealth extorted from an imprisoned
> > class, and to regard the value relation as non existant before the
> >  individual sale or sales - ie not to assume ( like our friends the
astute
> > accountants must do)  that the 'business ' is 'ongoing' at any point of
> > appraisal - seems to me to be quite, let us say, 'odd'.
>
> Paul B:
>
> It is your reasoning above which I find to be quite odd.  To say that
> value is actualized in exchange can not in any conceivable way be
> taken as a denial of  class exploitation.  To begin with, let us remember
> that the actual presence of exploitation of the working class requires
> exchange, i.e. the sale of the commodity labour-power,  _before_
> that exploitation commences.   Indeed, it is a precondition for
> exploitation.  To say that value is actualized in exchange is not a
> separation of the concept of value from exploitation:  rather, it is
> a _linking_ of value to use-value and the value-form.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>