Yes, it is, if it involves net surplus value transfer under coercive conditions (hereassummed in the miserty bit). When he cared about these thinggs, Roemer used to say taht this kind of example showed that exploitation is not the problem with capitalism; the problem is inequality -- thar the conditions are coercive. jks
--- Luke Weiger <lweiger at umich.edu> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
>
> > The second is whether you want to call
> profit-making
> > exploitation. If you're in a miserable state and
> I
> > come along with some capital and devise a way to
> make
> > you slightly better off and myself much better
> off,
> > is or is that not exploitation.
>
> That _is_ exploitation in the Marxist sense, right?
>
> -- Luke
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus