[ show plain text ]
[the slave] does not add value but [the wage worker] does because [slave
labor] is not the kind of abstract labor in that the free versatility of
labor is not adapted by the slaves themselves.
(a) I am not clear about the meaning of this sentence
(b) does it imply that *commodity* producing slaves (US South, Brazil, etc,
until C19th) were *not* producing value - simply because they were not free -
ie, the legal relationship between owner and slave determines the content of
the labour process?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT