**From:** ajit sinha (*sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM*)

**Date:** Wed Jun 16 2004 - 03:39:25 EDT

**Next message:**Phil Dunn: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Previous message:**Howard Engelskirchen: "Re: Money, mind and the ontological status of value"**In reply to:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Next in thread:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Reply:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

--- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, ajit sinha wrote: > > > --- Fred Moseley <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> wrote: > > > > > > What I mean by "L is taken as given" is this: > it is > > > assumed that the > > > capitalist labor process results in L hours of > > > socially necessary labor > > > time, in units of simple unskilled labor. We > don't > > > know what this > > > quantity is, but it is assumed that it exists, > and > > > that it determines the > > > quantity of money new-value produced during this > > > period (along with the > > > MELT), according to the equation: > > > > > > N = (MELT) L > > ______________________ > > I don't know what N stands for, but whatever it > is, I > > presume it is a determined variable. > > > N stands for money new-value produced in a given > period, as explained in > previous posts. In Marx's numerical example for his > theory of > surplus-value (in Chapter 7 of Vol. 1), a 6 hour day > produces money > new-value of 3 shillings, according to the equation: > > N = (MELT) L > > 3s = (0.5s/h) (6h) _____________________ Now, both 6 hour day and 3 shillings are observable categories. First, this statement says that every 6 hours day produces 3 shillings worth of 'money new-value'. Thus it is claiming that 6 hours of a carpenter's labor and 6 hours of a mason's labor both produce the same amount of 'money new-value'. Thus the abstraction that the 6 hours of carpenter's or mason's or others labors produce the same 'money new-value' is made by the theorist and it does not happen through market or the through the medium of money etc. So, I guess, my point about the abstract labor is settled by your own example. Second, though both the hours of labor and shillings are observable, the relationship between them, i.e., 6hours of labor produces 3 shillings of 'money new-value' is the assumption of the author. So the value of MELT is nothing but simply an assumption too. So your N is nothing but a product of two assumed (i.e., arbitrary)numbers and therefore, it is nothing but simply an arbitrary number. Remember, a theory is more than assumptions. _________________________ > > And a 12 hour day produces money new-value equal to > 6 shillings, according > to: > > 6s = (0.5s/h) (12h) > > Yes, N is a "determined variable", determined by the > product of L and > MELT. > > > > It is, according > > to your equation, determined by the product of > (MELT) > > and L. By your own admission, you don't know how > much > > the L is. And up till now you have not told us how > is > > the MELT determined. So at present, the above > equation > > translates as "nonsense" in plain English. > > > In Marx's theory in Capital, the MELT is determined > by the value of gold, > i.e. is equal to the inverse of the labor-time > required to produce a unit > of gold (i.e. MELT = 1 / Lg = 1 / (2 hrs. per > shilling) = 0.5 shilling per > hour). __________________________ But how do you get "the inverse of the labor-time required to produce a unit of gold"? In the production of gold constant capital is a factor, which is not gold. So you need to measure the constant capital factor in arriving at your measure of "labor time required to produce a unit of gold". My question to you all for a long time have been: how do you do that? Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

**Next message:**Phil Dunn: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Previous message:**Howard Engelskirchen: "Re: Money, mind and the ontological status of value"**In reply to:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Next in thread:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Reply:**Fred Moseley: "Re: measurement of abstract labor"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT
*