Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Nicola Taylor (nmtayl@YAHOO.COM.AU)
Date: Thu Apr 07 2005 - 12:06:06 EDT


actually, an argument has been presented many times.  Have you seriously read Reuten, Williams and Chris Arthur on the distinction between labour and labour power?

How is your conception of labour (and labour power) different from theirs?


Andrew Brown <A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK> wrote:
Rakesh, Nicky and all,

Rakesh is correct imo, with his comment below on Nicky's post. What I am
trying to do is answer Rakesh's question. Hegel-inspired systematic
dialecticians have never managed this, imo, in part because of their
lack of clarity on the nature of labour and labour-power (or maybe just
their disagreement with what I take to be the correct conception of

Many thanks,


>(imo) Marx's key insight into the social relations of capital is
>that workers trade their labour-power freely. i.e. the crucial
>distinction is not between humans, land, donkeys etc but between
>living *labour* and the *labour power* purchased for wages.

And why is the the crucial distinction? An argument has yet to be


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT