In Volume I of Capital, Marx invokes the distinction between labor pow
er and labor to explain how surplus value might arise from the circuit
of capital, given that all commodities exchange at their respective l
abor values. Contrary to Marx's representation, however, the stipulati
on of price-value equivalence is neither necessary nor adequate for a
coherent account of capitalist exploitation. The significance of the l
abor-labor power distinction is instead best understood in historicall
y contingent strategic terms that are essentially independent of Marx'
s value theory. Historical-strategic analysis suggests that the distin
ction has implications extending beyond the labor extraction problem t
ypically emphasized in the modern literature on class struggle in prod
uction.