> W. Kiernan wrote:
>
>> I didn't get the impression that Marx attached a moral odium to the
>> phrases "exploitation" and "extraction of surplus value,"
>
> Yup.
>
> I'm trying to remember the source and the exact wording of something
> Marx said about the class struggle. It went something like, between
> these two forces, there's no right and wrong - only strength
> prevails. Does anyone know the full cite?
"We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working-day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, wherever possible, two working days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence it is that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working class"
-- Capital, Vol.1, ch.X, p.225 of the 1970 Progress/L&W edition or (in a different translation), p.344 of the Penguin ed.
Chris