[lbo-talk] Delong puts the smackdown on ol' Whiskers

[Michael Dawson]

That's an attempt to score a distinction without a difference!  As we all
(except Brad) know, Marx argued you have to do both -- account for
production AND historical/qualitative relationships.  Exploitation isn't
just bad pay.  It's also alienation from any say over the conditions of work
and the size and distribution of the society's economic surpluses.  God,
that's just sophomore-in-college interpretation (and it could be 7th grade,
if Marx were ever de-stigmatized.)

And, btw, who on the planet DOESN'T count work hours as their first and
foremost concern, whenever the issue arises?  "How long will I be working
for you to earn the money you offer?"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Carl Remick
> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Delong puts the smackdown on ol' Whiskers
> 
> >From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> >
> >It's weird - Brad picks a pretty wacko example, admits its kind of wacko,
> >but then claims it's important and conclusive anyway. Why does Marx make
> >smart people do silly things?
> 
> Dunno, but I'm inclined to do something silly by uncharacteristically
> saying
> a good word on BDeL's behalf.  I think there is something to his
> conclusion,
> i.e.:  "If you want to make a compelling criticism of economic and social
> relationships, you cannot do so by saying that there is Marxian
> 'exploitation' --which exists wherever workers are paid less than the
> average product of labor. You have to, instead, inquire into the origins
> of
> the wealth and property rights on which the proprietor class's income is
> based. The labor theory of value is simply a red herring."
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk