I have a question I'm hoping you can clarify. You've highlighted (in my view, correctly) that exploitation according to Marx's formulation of the labor theory of value is "impersonal" and derives from the requisite of the capitalist mode of production to produce surplus value. However: isn't it the case that in Capital what Marx was characterizing was essentially the "limit case" of a market in which commodities (including labour power) are exchanged at their values (though they need not be)? Marx's point being that (through the mechanism of the fetish character of mone) exploitation occurs even in the case of ostensibly "free and equal exchange"? And so isn't it hence also the case that Marx acknowledges that concrete commodities need not actually be exchanged at their values -- and so is it not also the case that systematic undercompensation of particular class segments can arise in concrete historical cases (e.g. for U.S. blacks) without contravening Marx's analysis?
Excellent article! All of haider’s disingenuous arguments addressed with surgical like incision!
I have a question I'm hoping you can clarify. You've highlighted (in my view, correctly) that exploitation according to Marx's formulation of the labor theory of value is "impersonal" and derives from the requisite of the capitalist mode of production to produce surplus value. However: isn't it the case that in Capital what Marx was characterizing was essentially the "limit case" of a market in which commodities (including labour power) are exchanged at their values (though they need not be)? Marx's point being that (through the mechanism of the fetish character of mone) exploitation occurs even in the case of ostensibly "free and equal exchange"? And so isn't it hence also the case that Marx acknowledges that concrete commodities need not actually be exchanged at their values -- and so is it not also the case that systematic undercompensation of particular class segments can arise in concrete historical cases (e.g. for U.S. blacks) without contravening Marx's analysis?