[OPE-L:6545] Re: J.D.White offers more on Sieber herein

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Sat Feb 09 2002 - 18:39:46 EST

Dear Paul
Thanks, via you, to Jimmy W for the additional Sieber.

>The passage from Capital on value and labour that I had in mind actually
>came from the second edition. It is: 'Human labour-power in its fluid state
> creates value, but is not in itself value.' (Capital I, Penguin, p. 143).
>There is actually an earlier instance which I found in Theories of Surplus
>Value I, p. 135: 'A quantity of labour has no value, it is not a commodity,
> but is that which transforms commodities into values...'

This conflates two issues:
'Laboour is/not value'
'Labour has/no value'
Mandel, carchedi, and others who, like Sieber, assert 'labour *is* value'
are very clear that labour is not a commodity and hence 'has' no value. The
chain of thought seems to be: labour has no value because it is what gives
commodities value, hence it 'is' value.
Compare: a wavelength is not coloured, it is what gives the experience of
colour in the normal human eye, hence , e.g., light of a certain wavelength
'is' red light.
In both cases the final conflation of cause and effect is contestable.

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST