On Wednesday, July 5, 2006 at 15:30:50 (-0400) Walt Byars writes: >The one problem I still have difficulty with in Marxian economics is the >idea that labor power - the mental and physical capacity of humans to work >- is sold, rather than labor (not that I think its incorrect, I just have >some problems in understanding it). > >Intuitively, it seems like the reasoning for the sale of labor power is >that it is the only thing the worker *has*; the thing which possession >over transfers to the capitalist. > >Could someone elaborate why what the laborer sells must be a thing he or >she *has* rather than something he or she *does in the future*? Does this >have to do with the materialist conception of history? > >Or could someone explain (Better than Ch 6 of Capital 1 does) why it is >labor power rather than labor which is sold if there is a different >justification for this idea?
Why not think of it in terms of renting yourself (a human, with all that that implies) to those who own things? Clearly, a propertyless worker owns or has nothing that anyone could purchase --- the worker is "in possession" of the ability to do work, of course, and the worker "possesses" herself. So, the worker rents herself, to be used, as a machine, by those who can afford it. Lovely world. Bill
