-Original
Message-From:
Steven Colatrella [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 1:34
AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Iowa sociologist fired for
labor/abortion comments
Dear Prof. Rosen
D. Henwood wrote:
I'm not saying that worker = working class. A worker is someone who
works; a member of the working class is someone with little or no
property who must earn a paycheck to stay alive.
Doug
So a person who works and does not sell her or his labor-power in the labor
market is
Dear James:
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I agree: Marx was deliberately abstracting in a
way that (he thought) reflected the actual
process under capitalism. In my very short précis, I
was only summarizing one part of his
approach and its actual application. I was in no way
Dear James:
On Marx's use of abstraction in Capital I you wrote:
In order to understand
capitalist production in volume I, he deliberately
and clearly abstracts from the differences among
heterogeneous use-values, types of labor-power, and
means of production. He uses the acid of
Dear Julio:
The line of my argument is very similar to the comment
I sent to James Devine.
You wrote:
As Jim Devine wrote, Marx's description of the
process of production in
Capital (vol. I, part III) is akin to this idea.
After all, the material
substratum of the capitalist value equation,
of the
productivity of capital, the notion of factors of
production, etc. I wonder if there exists some
work(s) that systematically destroys the concept.
Thank you very much for your help,
Matías Scaglione
Internet GRATIS es Yahoo! Conexión
4004-1010 desde Buenos Aires. Usuario
Thanks to Michael, Juriaan and Ahmet for the reference
to Shaikh's work. I should have warned you that I knew
this paper, and that the very few critiques of
productions functions I have found led to this paper.
As I mentioned in my first mail, I am now not looking
for immanent critiques of
I wrote a little comment on Michael Albert's Parecon
as a reading interrogation for a class. We, the
students, had a teleconference with Albert, in which
the problem of allocation appeared as the critical
issue of his propposal. Here are my brief comments:
--
Michael?
Thanks,
Troy
Matías Scaglione [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote a little comment on Michael Albert's Parecon
as a reading interrogation for a class. We, the
students, had a teleconference with Albert, in which
the problem of allocation appeared as the critical
issue of his
Could you please give us the source of the quote?
Matías Scaglione
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Paul Samuelson sneers at the sterile verbalizations
by which economists
have tended to describe fertility decisions in terms
of the jargon of
indifference
10 matches
Mail list logo
