Re: Money, mind and the ontological status of value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 10:59:04 EDT

Paul C <clyder@GN.APC.ORG> said, on 06/20/04:

>By the way, surely your examples above are theoretical? They involve
>abstract characters 'the worker', 'the seamster'.

  On the contrary, Paul, rather than some meta-discourse,

  1. The worker finishing eight hours work at 4 p.m. is a member of my family (the true time is 4:30 p.m., but I simplified).

  2. The seamstress was Mary Anne Walkley, age 20, June, 1863, having worked 26 1/2 hours -- cited in *Capital I*, Part III, "Production of Absolute Surplus Value" (my memory was faulty on one detail: Mary Anne was working on dress for a ball for the Princess of Wales, not a wedding dress.  She "died on Sunday, without, to the astonishment of Madame Elise, having previously finished the work at hand").

  Marx, writing theory, expends an astonishing amount of effort connecting to reality, thus, his distinction between the theoretical object, 'production of absolute surplus value', and the real object, the hours actually being worked by workers.

>The point I am making is that you could object to any answer that Ian gave that he
>was just bringing up another theoretical object"

  Let's wait until Ian answers, maybe I won't object in the manner you suggest.  I hope he won't say that the object of the 'law of value' is the law of value.

>What is the real object corresponding to the 'law of gravitation'?"

  Wouldn't the legend of the apple falling on Newton's head do the trick ("why did this apple fall on my head, I don't see any string and my eyesight is not failing me?").  Or why is the Earth going around the sun, I don't see any rope?  Etc.

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 21 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT