andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> I have a couple of old papers on this:
>
> J. Schwartz, What's Wrong With Exploitation, Nous 1995
> J. Schwartz, In Defense of Exploitation, Economics and
> Philosophy, 1995
>
> I can have them PDFed and sent to you or anyone who is
> is interested.
Yes, please, send them to me and any of the others on your list as well. Being outside of the University, I greatly appreciate help locating critical essays relating to topics I am investigating.
> I don't know whether you will find these full of
> mystification and of no use to a self-organizing
> worker. I hope not, even though it is all written by
> scholars.
I don't know either, not having read these, whatever I can apply, I will.
Since you have read them, I wonder why you are satisfied with the odd posturing evident in the above paragraph and unwilling to apply your knowledge and debate the issue here?
> Marx's rejection of Proudhon was not personal or
> political pique, he actually disagreed with P's ideas.
I didn't comment on Marx's rejection of Proudhon, only on Proudhon's rejection of Marx, which happened before Marx had the chance.
> He would not have greed with those ideas even if P and
> he had been able to cooperate. We know this because
> the whole of his life work was devoted to developing
> an alternative to the sort of ideas P and many other
> "popular" radicals put forward, alleging that labor
> creates all wealth, and is therefore entitled to own
> the property it creates.
As much as all socialists are in debt to Marx, I would sooner you use whatever knowledge you have on this to make the case logically here, as interesting as it may be, your opinion on the purpose of Marx's life doesn't directly relate to the matter at hand.
As I have asked Tayssir, so I asked you, can you logically explain to me, preferable in the language of classical economics, how an exploitive class can arise out of free exchange without resorting to force?
Just briefly, in your own words, please answer this question.