Thanks Jim. I would like to continue further though, because I am very confused about this topic. Put differently, I am still unclear about what value is and I know that I am not alone as the history attests.
Let us go back to Mesopotamia of 4000 to 5000 years ago. There was the palace, the temple (temples and palaces, as Michael Hudson says), the agricultural production (ignoring other things) and the land. The palace and the temple were the financiers, agricultural workers were the producers and I am not so sure who owened the land then (most likely the palace and the temple, not the agricultural workers). How does this set up differ from a capitalist economy? ^^^^ CB: The producers are slaves , not wage-laborers. Marx reserves the terms "value" and "surplus-value" for the capitalist mode of production. The slave and feudal modes have "suplus-labor" in Marx's terminology in _Capital_. ^^^^ Where is the rent and where is the profit (surplus value)? Why was Hammurapi so much worried about the debts becoming unpayable? ^^^^^ CB: He knew you can't get blood out of a stone ? (lol) Does the land add to "value" in any way? ^^^^^ CB; Nature is a source of use-value , but not exchange-value in the capitalist mode of production Best, Sabi _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
