: The fact that the organisation exists (physically and mentally) must therefore also be a factor of production - must also be in receipt of its 'labor' value to keep it 'alive'. Crumbs, an even more bizarre version of labor value crept into my head, where the organisational profits are the 'wage' of the fact of the organisation.
Only if you equate an organization with a human being. As has been pointed out before, corporations are legal fictions, and should not be thought of in the same way as a human being.
: At least you can explain labor theory ina stimulating way, unlike the otehr respondant, it ogves one a new angle on reasons for organisational profits and investment returns.
Sorry you don't find Marx stimulating. If you think what I posted was boring, try reading that essay I linked to. Economics ain't sexy. As for all that talk about use-value and exchange-value, I wrote "The simple answer, of course, is that the orange would have no exchange-value at all if labor were not applied to it." You're right that I didn't hold your hand and walk you through it, but I thought that pretty much covered it.
: : No, we are entering into a contract in which we are paid the full value of our labour power- i.e. we sell our capacity to work (or rent it rather), which then is used in production by the capitalist in exactly the same manner as would a spanner or screwdriver. This is what alienation means
: Thats division of labor, the end goal of putting nuts on car wheels is to eat food and live in a house - just because one activity does not physically produce the other only alienated those who dont see it.
No, he was right, that's alienation. Division of labor is a style of production. Notice that he didn't talk about that, but about the manner in which labor is employed by the capitalist.