[OPE-L:8290] Re: Re: philosophy and political economy and time

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 17:56:49 EST

>Christopher Arthur wrote:
>> Re Michael's 8081 of Cologne 28-Nov-2002
>> A long delayed reply on time. Of course when I say time is money I do not
>> mean the dimension is time, what I mean is that the amount is a function of
>> the time capital is tied up for. As far as I can see you think the deltaM
>> is a contingent amount predicated on some Hayekian like creation out of
>> market imbalence. But I would like to support a version of LTV as follows:
>> Kapital situates production within the time of it own circuit of movement.
>> This means that if the GRP functions as any kind of regulator of the
>> strivings of individual capitals then there must be a form determining of
>> the money measure such that in the first instance (there are many other
>> instances, ioncluding contingencies) it is necessary according to the
>> Concept of capital that each K is rewarded in proportion to the time for
>> which it is tied up producing commodities, and in effect suffering a kind
>> of freeze in its movement compared with an ideal K that produces
>> instantaneously. The only way to for this to be acheived is to set the
>> reward of the ideal K at zero and set a new value proportional to each LT
>> such that every K valorises at the same rate.
>> I am not saying SNLT is some originary principle but that the form of
>> self-valorisation grounds itself in the exploitation of labour and it
>> measures this ground according to its own form, i.e. not energy, not toil
>> and trouble, not pleasant/unpleasant, or any other subjective perception of
>> laborers, but objective time alone because for K time is money whereas for
>> the peasant 'time costs nothing'.
>This version has little to do with labour, since time passes independently of
>the expenditure of labour. Money in a bank account grows over time,
>wine laid up in a vault rises over time. These, however are illusions
>generated by the existence of interest.

Agreed an argument for why labour is of the essence is needed but I was
concentrating on why L is measured in time. This is not a natural fact
about it but a socially determined one, as above.

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EST