>/ John B:
/>/
/>/ 2. According to Marx, exploitation occurs when the
/>/ surplus generated by
/>/ labor is not returned to the laborer but retained by
/>/ someone else.//
/
>Your account of Marxisn exploutation is erroneous.
The paradox is that none of us really knows or could know exactly and all of what Marx said or meant. In this case, my interpretation agrees with Justin's. John B.'s position would appear to be the "utopian" socialist position that Marx criticized repeatedly: that the labourer is entitled to the entire product of his/her labour. But that's just my interpretation. The fact that none of us really knows exactly what Marx meant (or if he alone was 100% consistent) is not a problem. It is a paradox. It would only be a problem if there were a way to solve it, but there isn't. One bunch of people is telling others to "give up" a way of analysis because in *their* opinion it is useless. Well, that's their opinion and that's all it is. They won't give up their opinion, so why should the others give up theirs?
Another paradox is this, why is it so urgent to the people in the give-it-up group that the others give up their assumptions and opinions? Are they so unsure of their own opinions and assumptions that they need to "win" in order to keep believing what they believe? These are not rhetorical questions and they are not yes or no questions. They are meant to provoke an examination not of who is right and who is wrong but why it seems to matter to people that they are the ones who are right.
The Sandwichman