[OPE-L:5856] Re: Re: Re: form and content re value-form and abstract labour

From: Mr. Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@stanford.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 14:02:06 EDT

"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said: 

> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Andrew Brown wrote:
> > Fred,
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply.  I think 'entity' is too stong. But if we 
> > substitute 'aspect' for 'entity'  I would go along with what you say. 
> > Ie. abstract labour are distinct aspects of value (and hence 
> > 'distinguishable'). Of course, I think there is alot more to the 
> > qualitative side of all this (viz. 'congealment', immediate opposition, 
> > mediate identity, and other such difficult stuff) but I can accept 
> > what you say, with the substitution suggested above. And I agree 
> > with you about the profound importance this has for grapsing the 
> > quantitative side of value. 
> Hi Andy,
> Thanks very much for your reply.
> Why is "entity too strong", in your view?  
> What is the difference between "entity" and "aspect"?
> Do you interpret "entity" to connote "independent existence" and thus no
> necessary connection?
> I interpret entity to simply mean a "something distinct from other
> identities", even though there may be necessary connections between these
> distinct identities.
> Whatever difference there might be between entity and aspect would seem to
> be very small.  We seem to agree on the main points - that abstract labor
> determines prices and therefore that abstract exits as a "distinct
> magnitude" (defined in units of labor-time) from money,

No abstract labor is defined in terms of units of socially necessary labor 
time. Unless a commodity proves itself to have been socially necessary, i.e., 
to have had a social use value, by having been sold for money, it will not 
count as embodied abstract labor. Abstract labor thus does not have a distinct 
existence from money....which does not mean that utility or use value 
determines the magnitude of value.


 and that the
> distinct existence of abstract labor as a magnitude is necessary in order
> to provide a quantitative theory of value and surplus-value.  
> Thanks again for the very productive discussion.
> Comradely,
> Fred

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT