What's also weird is the defacto claim that the exchange btwn labor and capital is exploitative. This is an assumption that isn't true. Further, not sure how exploitation is absent in even the 'purest' forms of what is euphemisitcaly called Marxism.
What's also weird is the defacto claim that the exchange btwn labor and capital is exploitative. This is an assumption that isn't true. Further, not sure how exploitation is absent in even the 'purest' forms of what is euphemisitcaly called Marxism.
(You may well already know this - I just don't think it's quite right to call it an assumption - more of an equation that arguably leaves out some factors).
What's also weird is the defacto claim that the exchange btwn labor and capital is exploitative. This is an assumption that isn't true. Further, not sure how exploitation is absent in even the 'purest' forms of what is euphemisitcaly called Marxism.
I think it devolves to that, in the absence of a regulated market for labor. (Hence, I'm a dirty Liberal.)
That's due to how Marx calculates surplus value i.e. as Richard Wolff explains straightforwardly here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VcgarDdIBA
(You may well already know this - I just don't think it's quite right to call it an assumption - more of an equation that arguably leaves out some factors).
So if an equation leaves out 'some factors', of what use is that equation?!?
Hint: it's worthless.