Carl
>From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>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
> > > > >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
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk