[ show plain text ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Levy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2000 8:37 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2072] Re: value-form theories
> Re Mike W's [OPE-L:2070]:
> Without some concept of labor time, how can the two forms of surplus
> value (relative s and absolute s) be theorized?
They can be conceptualised. It is indeed a moot question as to whether/how
they could be empirically distinguished with any precision. Anyway, it is,
of course, always possible to use actual labour hours worked as an index of
abstract labour for looking at a single kind of plant. The question is what,
if anything that would tell you. i.e. what precisely is the
absolute/relative sv distinction for? (This is not rhetorical - I do not
mean to imply that it has no purpose.) The - do we need an empirically
operational distinction to achieve that purpose?
> (To others as well) What is gained and lost by conceptualizing labour
> power as a very, very special (i.e. unique) commodity vs. conceiving of it
> as not a commodity?
Conceptual Accuracy, Brevity and Clarity!
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
fax: 0870 133 1147
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST