I think that Hodgskin is the inspiration for Marx's 2 sector model in Vol. 2.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Tom Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the "means of production." I would suggest that on this question it > would be prudent to go back a bit before Herr Marx to Mr. Hodgskin's > argument about co-existing labour. The "means of production" are not, in > fact, machines or raw materials but the simultaneous labour of other > workers. If one follows Marx through all the convolutions of the fetishism > of commodities, I think one will arrive back at a perhaps more subtle > interpretation of Hodgskin's co-existing labour, but one whose subtlety > makes it too FUCKING easy to reduce to a vulgar materialist "substance". > Marx equivocated on this point, so either reading is plausible. > > But just because Marx equivocated, doesn't mean that we have to. > > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:05 PM, <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> If you define class struggle as struggle for control of >> means of production, the environmental movement is a kind of >> class struggle. It is the struggle for control over and >> benefit from the earth's natural resources, which are means >> of production. > > > -- > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
