Re: [OPE] Reply to critics

Date: Mon Oct 18 2010 - 20:54:48 EDT

> 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.
Hi Paula:
I think it only becomes a conundrum if you view the question from a static
perspective. Once you recognize that value has a temporal and spatial dimension
then it ceases to be a logical puzzle and becomes a question of grasping how
this process happens in practice.

> > 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.
I'm not making an assumption here, I think. Rather, I'm making a deduction
based on how it was written and it's consistency with other passages by the
same author. I guess we could go to the original German if you think it's
still unclear.

> > 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?

Well, that's what's called answering a question with a question.
The answer is that what whereas finance, insurance, and real estate
have in common is not that they are services but they all concern the
the distribution of surplus value among capitalists and/or the legal title
to private property. What makes the labor employed by 'retail' (an amorphous
term which needs clarification for further discussion) is that labor
assists the realization of surplus value, not its creation. Hence, the labor
of actors or a clown employed by a capitalist firm really has nothing in
common with the sectors you mentioned. If you are looking for
commonalities look to examples of what we all could agree are productive
In solidarity, Jerry
ope mailing list
Received on Mon Oct 18 20:56:46 2010

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