>>> kelley at interpactinc.com 03/18/01 12:44PM >>>
At 11:54 AM 3/18/01 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: Doesn't the labor theory of value valorize historically undervalued
>characteristics ? Much of oppressor classes' mind control of oppressed
>classes is to get the oppressed class to underestimate or be unconscious
>of its own strengths and advantages.
no, since they weren't historically undervalued. Marx doesn't even use the phrase LTV?!
(((((((((
CB: He doesn't use the phrase, but he uses the theory.
Labor is the source of all exchange-value, as that concept is used in _Capital_. Nature is a source of use-value , but not exchange-value.
Actually, you are technically correct because the worker is paid the full value of her labor power, but not the full value of all the exchange-value she produces.
Lets put it this way. Marx's theory shows that labor is the source of surplus value. Making workers conscious of that is radical. (((((((((((
1. "Labor is the source of wealth and all culture, and since useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society." First part of the paragraph: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture."
Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments.
-clip-