Anything's beach reading if you have some shade! — StreetlightX
The big distinction that he makes - which is the thing that I think is going to leave a lasting impression on me, no matter how much else I forget - is that between value created and value captured. For him, the North captures value, even as it is created in the South. It's this distinction that is papered over in bourgeois economics, which only has an eye for value-added as a matter of exchange rather than production. — StreetlightX
Do you think the division between political north and south tracks the division between the two sides of 'profit upon alienation' in Theories of Surplus Value? And furthermore that profit upon alienation is strictly a redistributive mechanism of value, rather than a creation of value. — fdrake
Yes, but if I understand correctly, Smith is interested in the particular form in which profit upon alienation takes under imperialism. To the degree that profit upon alienation is redistributive, he notes that Marx outlined three such ways in which such redistribution could be maximized: by lengthening the working day, by increasing productivity, or by deceasing wages. Smith contends that Marx only examined the first two mechanisms at any length, because he (Marx) figured the labour market would always equalize wages via competition anyway - but he never contended that capital would go HAM in restricting the free movement of labour, which makes the third mechanism particularly relevant in the conceptualization of imperialism. It's worth quoting Smith on this point actually — StreetlightX
Roadside Picnic - Arkady and Boris Strugatsky — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.