> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Lakshmi Rhone <lakshmirhone at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I really don’t understand why you started talking about rent when we
> were
> > first trying to figure out what value is and its relation to price.
> >
>
> rents, in this case, are a technical term tied not to the fee for using
> someone else's real property but to added costs or savings tied to market
> advantages tied to phenomena like location relative to markets, innovation
> relative to industrial sectors, etc... they have strong impacts on price
> but
> are not elements of value within the labor theory of value.
>
Could you clarify whether you are saying rents are price determining or price-determined? I think you are jumping the gun.
>
> >
> > I am not sure what Marx or you are saying. But from my surrealist social
> > justice perspective I consider it rather astonishing that a natural
> > substance mined in horrendous conditions by degraded and abused workers
> > actually ascended to the heavens of the marketplace to become the God
> with
> > which everything else had to request humbly an exchange. So I would
> > juxtapose this image with this verse to show absurdity of bourgeois life,
> > the voracious exploitation of those who brought to the market a thing of
> > infinite power, the sacrifice of life and the enthroning of a thing.
> >
> > In addition to Joanna's excellent link, this, fairly short, passage from
> Capital lays out Marx's understanding of fetishism
which short passage from Capital? I missed it.
> and - and I didn't
> anticipate this - also lays out one of the ways he links
> particular/specific
> labor processes and exchanges which will partially address your connection
> about the relation between particular exchanges and the structural dynamics
> of capitalism.
>
Again: in what passage is this laid out?
LR
>
> Off to teach...
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>