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

From: Ian Wright (iwright@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 00:30:47 EDT


Yes I agree that surplus-value is specific to capitalism and should
not be directly identified with exploitation as I did in my bungled
post that can only generate confusion on that point. Given what I
wrote you are right to remind me of the ABCs. Unfortunately, my error
has detracted from the point I was trying to make.

So to try and get back on track. The case of capitalism with slavery
perhaps better illustrates the general point that the wage-capital
relation alone cannot be constituitive of the production of
surplus-value. To put it perhaps too simply, (i) profit is a form of
surplus-value, and (ii) slave-owners make profits, therefore (iii) the
wage/capital relation is not uniquely constituitive of surplus-value,
even within a historically-specific kind of capitalism. I suppose it
might be possible to deny (ii) but I can't see how.

I therefore do not think that the wage/capital relation can be the
crucial distinction, although it is an important part of the story,
as, for example, it makes possible a greater degree of innovation
compared to the slave/slave-owner relation.

I hope I haven't tried your patience too much ...


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 09 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT