As the non-thread reaches bitterbuttendedness,Ian writes:
>
> Why don't you go back and read the April 7 thread "DeLong gives the smackdown to 'Ol Whiskers" in order to see how Carrol changed the subject completely so that we now have immense drift away from what was the issue at the time, *one* hypothesis within KM's mature pe.I'm done with this; you feel free to keep babbling.
I reply: then why don't you quote CC and take him on again? At least CC has the courtesy to change thread titles when he digresses onto a topic he thinks is more important. I'm not sure you are a very courteous or cooperative discussant at all.
Next, WS writes:
> 1. Capital does contribute to the production process in the form of organization and that part should be treated as remuneration for work.
But it doesn't do that as capital. Such organisation can be done through government, non-profit organisations, and through cooperatives, and it is not inherently a function of 'capital'.
Next, WS writes:
>>According to Marx, exploitation occurs when the surplus generated by labor is not returned to the laborer but retained by someone else. So it does not matter whether that surplus is retained by a capitalist or "society" or rather its representative - in each case it is 'exploitation.'>>
Surpluses are not necessarily the sort of 'profits' Marx is talking about if they are paid out to the stakeholders of a manufacturing or service-producing entity. This is why cooperative ventures and government companies can actually put for-profit capital ventures out of business. They simply have more money to organise and produce, and their business-worthiness is not parasitised by stock holder demands for ever higher pay outs.
Next TW writes:
>> A commodity is a "mysterious thing" and the labour theory of value, rather than being a basic "fact" for Marx is the most complete expression of the process of this mystification. The value resides not in the things themeselves but in the relationship between producers.>>
This is a structuralist or post-structuralist reading of Marx. See my earlier post. Commodities or LTV are not mysterious if you work in that discourse, even before Marx. So why blame Marx for the 'mystification'? No more mysterious than 'meaning' or 'number' or 'golden unicorns'.
Fugazy -- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com