Ted writes:
"The interpretive claims I made and supported with text, speak against your interpretive claims that Marx's ontology allows for the treatment of a social entity, a class, as a locus for the realization of value, e.g.as "a potential bearer of ethical claims," independent of the individuals constituting it, i.e. they speak against the following interpretive claims (which also misidentify "individualism" with "atomism"):"
1. you don't challenge Marx's argument, as I have presented it, that the very concept of justice--locked seemingly into a juridic, case by case framework--forces us to look at the wage transaction as an individual disjointed exchange from which point of view the use of one's own past abstract labor to command a greater quantity of abstract labor than that simply cannot be seen.
2. If you prefer, one can say that Marx who was by the way a militant for working class organization claims that the individual only suffers an injustice as a member of class rather than as individuated individual. In no way did I say the class has existence outside the members who compose it or that the members of a class can be sacrified for the sake of a reified class. The point is that the individuals who suffer injustice can only claim redress as members of an aggrieved class, but an aggrieved class cannot shout injustice given Marx's understanding of justice as a rechtsbegriff. Hence, Marx did not condemn capitalism on the basis of its injustice. He only cast doubt on its claim to justice and fairness. That is, immanent critique, though as I have suggested he was only partially successful. Marx sought motivation for working class struggle in terms of what Wood calls non moral goods.
But note that despite all the quotes you do not offer a different interpretation of chapters 23 and 24 from which Ziyad Husami took his most powerful quotes in his flawed argument in favor of the argument that Marx condemns capitalism due to its injustice.
Rakesh