Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 08:56:36 EDT

From: OPE-L on behalf of Andrew Brown
This is very interesting. It enables me to clarify very simply that I
argue, contrary to your clearly stated view below, that the whole issue
precisely turns on the difference between labour / labour power as
opposed to machine / machine power. That's pretty much the crux of
everything: value as labour and surplus value as surplus labour, on my
argument. Thus it is the qualitative considerations that are decisive
here, for me. Many of my previous posts to this list, especially as
concerns the uniqueness of labour can be read in this light. 

Many thanks,




the correspondence should not be machine/machine power to 
labour/labour power. If one wants to do that the correspondance
should be (machine/machine power)  goes to (worker/labour power).

Labour is the time integral of labour power, just as
for Watt, work done was the time integral of horse power.

If one wants a couple corresponding to labour/labour power
it would have to be something like kilo-joules/ kilo-watts
in a putative 'electrical theory of value' - not of course
that I advocate any such theory of course.

One can construct a consistent electrical theory of value,
the problem is not its internal consistency, but that it
is a shit theory when it comes to predictiong what actually
happens to prices. When you look at real prices, only
labour will cut it.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 26 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT