Re: [OPE-L] exploitation and abstraction

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 27 2007 - 11:19:19 EDT

--- Michael Schauerte <mikeschauerte@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

 I don't see any
> other way to arrive at a
> deeper understanding of reality. And so when we
> analyze the phenomenon of
> profit, we need to uncover its essence
> (surplus-value) and then undertake
> the difficult task of understanding the relation
> between  essence and the
> concrete reality we encounter every day. Obviously
> if the essential theory
> cannot account for that reality (after the mediating
> points are filled in),
> then it is of little use.
I have read some of your post on this question and I
think the main weakness of your position is that you
start from the premis that Marx's theory as found in
*Capital* is 100% right. I get the feeling that I am
reading something written in late 19th century or
early 20th century. You need to first establish how
the concept of surplus value relate to the concept of
profits. It is not evidently clear to me that one can
establish any relationship between the two, so how can
one claim that one is the essence of the other? That's
why I had suggested that it may be more fruitful to
ask: where does wage come from? You said you agreed
with me, but I didn't understand what did you agree

By the way, did Marx ever shave his beard?

Cheers, ajit sinha

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

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