In other words there are not two relationships between the worker and the capitalist, one of which might be just and the other unjust, but one relationship, the wage relationship, which is the unjust one of the extortion of unrequited labour -- slavery -- secured by the commodification of labour-power.
I agree that it is vitally important that, as you say, in the final analysis the capital out of which wages are paid is the accumulation of surplus value created by previous surplus labour, and that this is a class relationship and I would say a class injustice. _____________________________
James, I am sure Wood's words were genuine, so feel lucky to be in dialogue with you on this, though here I fear that I shall repeat myself as I have over the last several posts. Can there be such a thing as a class injustice? Marx argues that any possibly prevailing theory of justice will not allow it. Yet to show that the wage transaction is unjust as one party bears the costs on both sides, we have to understand the aggrieved or appropriated party as a class subject, exploited not in a disjointed transaction but over the course of economic reproduction. Yet Marx argues any possibly prevailing theory of justice will only allow us to judge individual transactions disjointed from one and another. This is indeed the result of the superstructural nature of the theory of justice. But this is a very complicated argument--why if any possibly dominant conception of justice is a reflection or even part and parcel of general commodity exchange, can there be no judgement of relations on a class basis over time? Where's the incompatibility? This is the question that Wood and no one else--to the best of my knowledge--answers. But it's Marx's basic point! My posing the question is obviously no answer either.
I look forward to reading your work.
Carrol writes:
But by any standard we can derive from present perspective, the immense human slaughter brought about by capitalism cannot be transhistorically justified by any conceivable outcome. Capitalism is a _fact_, a bloody and destructive fact, but (given that) we can see how for us (or perhaps only for our descendants) a redemption in terms of the future it makes possible. ____________________
Ah Walter Benjamin memories of enslaved ancestors, not visions of liberated granchildren, motivate the revolutionary. Now a cliche for the left, I know. Almost painful on the ears. I am told that there is new work on Benjmain's philsophy of history, but you are stuck with me.
And Carrol also writes:
But certainly nothing about capitalism calls into question the validity of the ancient Greek proverb, "It is best never to be born; once born, it is best to go hence quickly."
__________________
Yet to give up notions of progress and historical necessity, then what justification would you use for the tactics I think you would advocate in a transition. Hope that makes sense. And why it has proven not resistant to going quickly is of course one important question. If not because of its historical justification--which is as you suggest no explanation in itself--then why. But eloquently stated point.
Rakesh