The question of the movie star is not really that complicated. The size of the stars income is determined by the monopoly possession of either a unique talent or (more likely) name recognition which can sell movies. Most of the stars income is therefor a deduction from the surplus. Local media says designers have stopped employing supermodels for this reason. Justin is wrong about the exploitability of corn. Sure this is mathematically possible in some models. This does not mean it is really possible in the social world. Exploitation occurs _by definition_ when one group lives off of the labour of another. To envision exploitation taking place on the basis of surpluses produced by corn is to fall prey to another form of commodity fetishism. Levins and Lewonton point out that it is mathematically possible using a production function to disentangle and quantify the respective contributions of mortar and bricks to a wall. A moments reflection demonstrates this is impossible when confronted with an actual wall. Marx contributes to this confusion by identifying labour power (as opposed to labour) as a commodity. But labour power while sold is NOT PRODUCED FOR SALE. It is not a commodity. It's value is not determined through circulation on the market. Its value is determined more or less directly in class struggle with capital. Since it is not a commodity like corn, it cannot by 'exploited' in the same sense that corn can even within an abstract model with physical surpluses. Terry McDonough
