[OPE-L:3290] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: starting points

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Mon May 22 2000 - 20:09:11 EDT

[ show plain text ]

On Mon, 22 May 2000, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

> An unsold commodity is not "somehow 'not necessary'"; it is
> simply not a value at all. Something only becomes a value,
> some magnitude of socially necessary labor time, upon being
> sold for money....

Ah, you're thinking of the influence of market demand upon the
social necessity of labour time as a binary matter: 0 or 1,
rather than a sliding quantitative scale. Well, I think that
has problems, but it's less damaging to the labour theory of
value than the notion that demand affects the /degree/ to which
labour should be considered socially necessary. (The binary
version strikes me as problematic because almost all would-be
commodities can be sold at /some/ price or other (>0), so it
seems that whether or not a product "becomes a value" may depend
on the seller's reservation price, which could be quite
contingent, and unrelated to the conditions of production, or
the general conditions of market demand.)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:11 EDT