Does the labor theory mean that more people will make us rich?

RAUNHAAR at aol.com RAUNHAAR at aol.com
Wed Dec 4 16:13:12 MST 2002


[ converted from html. see:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/marxism@lists.panix.com/msg33799.html
]



In einer eMail vom 03.12.2002 20:19:11 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt
durable at earthlink.net:


> But, that doesn't mean that wealth "comes" from labor. Prices based on labor
> inputs act properly to divide the economic output, but if resources are
> scarce prices will just act to divide a declining economic output.  It's
> not surprising that we have ignored resources as a limitation on economic
> output or as a sourceor wealth since resources were abundant and had little
> effect on prices. We have been focusing on what was the weak link in
> production, labor. But, the idea that only people create wealth is based on
> our ignorance of the resource base as economic input and the potential for
> automation to replace human labor.

(Abstract) labour is the only source of value. Value is the form of wealth
which is predominant (only) in capitalism. Material wealth, however, is based
on resources, dead labour, (alienated) species' capacities, and to an ever
lesser degree on direct (living) human labour. At the same time (abstract)
labour is the form of social mediation in capitalism. This function of
"labour" is unique in human history. It is the fetish-form of social
mediation in the modernity.






~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list