Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

From: Paula <>
Date: Mon Oct 18 2010 - 18:04:02 EDT

Jerry wrote:
> The solution to the conundrum, imo, lies in the character of SNLT and how
> it
> can change over time. I think Anders is correct to point to the importance
> of
> looking at this as a dynamic process ...

Yes, but there wouldn't be a conundrum in the first place if the changing
character of SNLT didn't negate the fixed amount of concrete labor. So the
contradiction is already contained, in germ, in the distinction between
abstract and concrete labor.

> Nope. In the passage I cited Marx did not refer to the appropriation or
> transfer of s; he said it produces a S.
> "the former's labour produces a surplus-value; in the latter, revenue is
> consumed."

You're making a huge unstated assumption about the meaning of the word
'produces' in that passage. But it could easily mean 'produces a S for the
particular capitalist', which would then include cases where S is 'produced'
by appropriation or transfer.

> You're not suggesting that the labour of the actors or a clown (employed
> by a capitalist firm) isn't production of s but rather represents a
> redistribution
> of s, are you?

If it's the case with other service industries (finance, insurance, real
estate, retail, etc), why not with entertainment?


ope mailing list
Received on Mon Oct 18 18:05:38 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT