Re: [OPE-L] More about exploitation

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sun Jun 24 2007 - 13:29:38 EDT

> It might be more
> accurate to say: What is the origin of surplus-value?

Hi Michael S:

I agree that one needs to be clear about the origin of surplus-value.
But, is that the issue being discussed here?  I don't think so.  The issue
is (I think) whether there can be be exploitation even outside of the
process of surplus value creation.  I think there can be, even if it
doesn't conform to Marx's understanding of the meaning of exploitation.

For instance, if one worker who does not work is able to lay claim to the
*value* (not surplus value) received by another worker then (depending on
the circumstances) that might be thought of as being exploitive.  This
varies, of course, according to the customs and traditions in different
social formations. In the US, it is not so uncommon for adult 'children'
to live with and off of the income of their working-class parents.  In
Japan, the tradition is quite different.

Rent could be thought of as being exploitive even though it concerns the
*distribution* of  value and surplus-value, rather than its production.
Is that not so?  Can't it be the case that landlords exploit their
working-class tenants, for instance?

One must remember that this is an issue which concerns some complexities
and concrete realities associated with capitalist social formations for
which Marx's  writings in  _Capital_ are not necessarily a good basis
since _Capital_ is presented at a very high level of abstraction.  I think
this is something that the Uno-school grasps with its distinction between
basic theory and stage analysis.  Is that not so?

Still waiting for a fair wind.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT