Re: on money

From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Sun May 30 2004 - 15:55:01 EDT

On Sunday 30 May 2004 01:09, Paul Zarembka wrote:
> Paul C.
> I don't understand your cryptic comment:
> [Paul Z.]
> > >The first use of the word Value in Volume 1 comes right after describing
> > >labor in the abstract.  So where do you find in Marx that Value goes
> > >beyond a context of labor in the abstract (is indepedent of the
> > >commoditization of labor power, thus buying and selling of labor power
> > >which he will discuss a bit later)?
> [Paul C.]
> > There is a shift here in your presentation from abstract labour to the
> > buying and selling of labour power. If the distinction between labour
> > and labour power means anything, your equation can surely not be
> > retained.
> Are you claiming that labor, not labor power, is bought and sold? If not,
> and labor power -- the capacity or work, labor in the abstract -- is what
> is bought and sold, then what's my problem?
> Paul Z.

Sorry Paul, now realise that I misread you, I though that you were identifying
labour in the abstract with the buying and selling of labour power. A more
careful reading of your sentence indicates that I misunderstood you.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 31 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT