> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of andie nachgeborenen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:59 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: RE: [lbo-talk] Missing the Marx
>
>
> --- Michael Dawson <MDawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
>
> > Well, the argument was not really over whether wages
> > and profits are legally
> > correct under capitalism. Nobody disputes that.
> > The argument was over
> > whether paying wages for work-time while capitalists
> > keep the surpluses
> > created by wage laborers is exploitation.
>
> Of course it is, that's almost definitional.
>
> In other
> > words, whether
> > capitalist property is stolen
>
> That's not "in other words." What's wrong with
> exploitation might be a lot of things other than
> theft. Marx thought it was unfreedom, not theft. It
> might even be (as I think) injustice but not theft.
>
> > and unethical.
>
> Well, we all agree that exploitation is bad.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Eub and Andie, meanwhile, seem to want to rescue
> > Marx from himself, also
> > because you can't numerically prove the LTOV.
>
> Well, not exactly. Sweezey and Borktewicz showed that
> you can "prove" the LTOV, that is, derive values from
> prices under certain idealized conditions like
> constant returens to scale, etc. The real question is
> what milage that gets you. What work it does.
>
> Following the neo-Sfraffians, my own view is that
> value (SNALT, socially necessary embodied labor time)
> is a fifth wheel, it doesn't add anything to things
> you already say just using price talk and sociology.
>
> I mean, it's heuristically useful to talk in value
> terms to make certain points, but I don't thgink it is
> any more than that. Ia lso think, heretically, that
> Marx didn't think it was any more than that.
>
> >
> > I believe that, despite his scorn for Proudhon's
> > "all property is theft"
> > line, which may seem to imply that Marx thought _no_
> > property was theft,
> > pointing out that capital is stolen property was the
> > central aim of Marx's
> > work.
>
> And you think this because? You actually haven't said,
> just that you're appalled that I disagree.
>
> jks
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk