[ show plain text ]
There is no obvious reason that workers have to be free in order to add
value. As Alfredo suggests, enslaved workers in Brazil and the US created
lots of value and surplus value. In fact, one might reasonably argue that
enslavement is the ultimate form for commodifying the labor process (by
making the worker a commodity).
peace, patrick l mason
At 12:26 AM 3/28/00 EST, you wrote:
>[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
>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