Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 14:16:12 EDT

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Claus Magno wrote:

> I'm aware of the fact that
> the amount of time does not appear as a palpable physical or chemical
> property of the commodity and is a purely social entity (a social average of
> the particular times spent by the several producers). But no doubt each
> commodity requires a definite amount of time (as a social average) to be
> produced and in this sense expresses this amount of time in its natural or
> physical form.

I think if we were to stay with 'expresses' we would be not have much
difference between us, but ...

> I hope I have clarified my understanding of this point above. Since the
> computer monitor requires a definite amount of social time, one can say that
> it "contains" value (I think Marx uses the same concept), but obviously not
> in a physical sense.

your verb above, 'contains', seems different than 'expresses'.

> The monitor is obviously the product not of the hours but of
> the labour, but it is clearly the product of a definite amount of labour in
> the abstract, hours or days or whatever (as a social average).

Doesn't this read that the monitor is 'not' the product of labor hours,
but 'is' "the product of a definite amount of labor in the abstract,
hours", i.e. labor hours?  The wording is so close as to be identical.

I think you are looking for labor hours to be 'in' a commodity, which
seems to be an empiricist essentialism.  Am I incorrect?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 11 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT