Brad's right. John Roemer has made the same points in a series of books and papers in the late 1979s and early 80s. There are problems with Roemer's neoclassical method, but the basic point is sound -- there is more to exploitation than unequal exchange. Or even in the capitalist getting more value or profit out of the worker's work than the worker puts into it. You need factual premiseS (which Marx supplies) that the exchange is involuntary and normative premises that say that there is something wrong with the arrangement.
--- Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >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
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com