Distinguishing labour-capacity from labour resolves the wage contradiction Marx inherited

Evidence

This discovery’, Walter Tuchscheerer argues, ‘is one of the greatest in the field of political economy’, for ‘[i]t forms the key with which Marx goes on to solve all the contradictions in which economists prior to him had gotten entangled. As long as it was assumed that the capitalist paid the “value of labour” [and not the value of labour-capacity], why the “value of labour” – the wage – does not equal the value produced by labour, why a particular quantity of objectified labour is exchanged, had to remain an insoluble contradiction’. This discovery allows the existence of surplus-value – and therefore also the self-movement of capital – to be explained not in spite of, but on the basis of the exchange of equivalents. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1359

Categorization

• XREF: This is the core Marxian theoretical move that underlies Adorno’s own political-economy critique throughout the book. — connects to: The labour theory of value must be distinguished from Marx’s value-form analysis — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 514; Capitalist-worker exchange is formally equal but substantively unequal — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1365; Surplus value arises from the gap between labour time given and reproduction cost — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1364 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Worth checking Tuchscheerer’s framing against Marx’s own texts — does Marx credit the discovery this way?

Broader Connections

• The labour theory of value must be distinguished from Marx’s value-form analysis #expands (0.80) — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 514
• Capitalist-worker exchange is formally equal but substantively unequal #qualifies (0.75) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1365