From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 22:48:30 EST
Hi Ajit OK let's cut to the chase as you suggest. Marx's theory of value implies the proposition that there is no profit without surplus labour. It's logically possible that there is profit without surplus labour. Hence Marx's theory of value is wrong. My theory of horses implies the proposition that they don't talk. It's logically possible that horses can talk. Therefore my theory of horses is wrong. This is not much of a critique is it? There's a reason why horses don't talk, and there's a reason we don't find profits without surplus-labour. My talk of dynamic trajectories and the intertwined historical emergence of universal labour and the value-form, which you're not interested in, is an attempt to explain why your logical possibility cannot be an actual possibility. You raise other issues that I'd like to comment on (unfeasibly large rates of surplus-value and robot labour), but I'll follow your example and stick to one issue at a time. Best, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 02 2006 - 00:00:04 EST