[OPE-L:4272] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of VolumeIII of Capital

From: TonyTinker (TonyTinker@email.msn.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 00:50:06 EDT


Many thanks -- I accept your correction (very sloppy of me).

However I believe that the substance of the remark still remains: that
surplus-value-producing-wage labor depends on social preconditions (surplus
production) that need to be theorized and engage politically.  This is
legitimate territory for Marxists.


----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 3:36 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:4241] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part Two of
VolumeIII of Capital

> Tony, You confuse surplus-value production with surplus production. Only
> wage labor produces value and surplus value.
> I am not very interested in the transformation problem.  Many of your
> other statements are not objectable to me, either.  Paul Z.
> *************************************************************************
> Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
> ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, TonyTinker wrote:
> > Steve, Rakesh, and Paul Z:
> >
> > I hesitate to offer yet another endorsement of Steve Keen's arguments,
> > feel obliged to chime-in after reading Paul Zarembka's demarcation rule
> > (suggesting that Steve should take his ball and play elsewhere).  Giving
> > centrality to the capitalist mode of production (and therefore its
> > exploitative class relations) does not lead, inexorably, to attributing
> > surplus value production exclusively to wage labor (or make solving the
> > transformation problem of overriding importance for Marxists).
> ...

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EST