Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 18:52:29 EDT
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Strange or difficult From: Morten Hansen <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, May 10, 2003 5:10 pm To: email@example.com Hi Levy, it’s ok, if you forward my remarks to the list. I’ve read the archives since January this year. In general about the questions of money. Below I’ve added some remarks, which I hope will explain my note concerning OPEL 0305 better. Further remarks concerning the relationship between labour and money: I don’t believe that the terminological difference between labour and labour force explains everything. As I see it, it is the exchangeability of commodities with each other that makes them a commodity. And they are only exchangeable through the price form i.e. measured by money. Why is labour force a commodity? Since, labour force isn’t produced as a common product, labour force isn’t similar to an usual commodity like a printer. It would be much more evident to compare human labour force with natural forces such as oil sources, forests and agricultural grounds. Labour force is sold, not as a commodity, but »as if« it was a commodity. It has no commodity form, it obtains first one by the virtue of money (in this case money-capital). Labour force has no value in itself. Value is only a question of exchangeability (with money). Hence, the labour force must obtain its value by virtue of its exchangeability with money. From this point of view there is no connection between the wage-theory and the labour theory of value. Yours Morten Hansen firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > Dear Morten: > > Thank you for your message. If you wish I will forward it to > OPE-L. Please advise. > > How long have you been reading our archives? > > Comradely, Jerry > > > Hi, Levy > > > > I’m writing to you because I find that the list might have some > difficulties with strange expressions, f.i. »carrilon« and even > »substantial claim« (which obviously means a lot in english). > Perharps you could make a note. I mean that if the authors explains > themselves with expressions taken from f.i. german and french it > might be easier for continentially readers to understand the list > and it’s hints. > > > > > > Note to OPEL 0305 > > > > The wagelabour could be Michael Eldred’s strongest argument against > a labour theory of labour (or a value-form labour theory of value > (the standpoint of Chris Arthur?)). The wagelabour (first > determination) is the exchange for money against labour. (Eldred has > once suggested hiring of labour). Even Aristoteles mentions the > »thetes« the old > > day-labourers. > > > > Yours > > > > Morten Hansen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 11 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT