[OPE-L:5660] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reduction

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 20:34:17 EDT

I think you will find Arun Bose's argument on this front more substantive 
than you currently believe.

Also check Marx in Theories of Surplus Value on the value of raw commodities:

"Ricardo never uses the word value for utility or usefulness or "value in 
use". Does he therefore mean to say that the "compensation" is paid to the 
owner of the quarries and coalmines for the "value" the coal and stone have 
before they are removed from the quarry and the mine--in their original 
state? Then he invalidates his entire doctrine of value. Or does value mean 
here, as it must do, the possible use-value and hence the prospective 
exchange-value of coal or stone?" (Marx 1861 Part II, p. 249)

I suggest that it would be rather hard to interpret Marx's statement here 
in a manner which makes it consistent with your statement.

At 04:07 AM 5/24/01 Thursday, you wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2001, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:
> > >If you believe that commodities can be resolved into labour and
> > >labour alone, then you believe in magic.
> >
> > But Steve no one is saying that; of course there will remain some
> > natural residue which is not objectified labor. Marx never said
> > otherwise. In fact in both Capital 1 and the the Critique of the
> > Gotha Programme he emphasized that wealth is the product of both
> > labor and nature...as you surely know
>Agreed.  The non-labour residue is composed of the materials supplied
>gratis by nature, which are crucial to a commodity's use-value but
>have no bearing on its value.

Home Page: http://www.debunking-economics.com
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT