Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2007 - 15:48:37 EST

 This is trivial, isn't it? Who has ever denied that in
> most of the cases (sometimes you can find use values
> as spontaneous product of nature--as a matter of fact
> a great many important use values such as air you
> breathe) labor is an element in production process.
> All economics, including neoclassical economics assume
> 100% of times that labor is an essential element in
> the production process. So what are you trying to say
> here?
> _____________________________

You are distorting my words:
I don't say that labour is an element in production process, but the ONLY
active element. More precisely: without labour you don't have ANY _process_
at all in the long run. But with labour you always have a production process
no matter how difficult it can become. You will need time, of course. But
without labour no passing of time will help you to get a production.

And I repeat: Even if it is possible to say that other things enter directly
OR indirectly in the production of all commodities, the truth is that labour
is the ONLY ONE that enters directly--IN ADDITION TO indirectly--in the
production of ALL commodities.

That means that labour is different from other elements in production
because it is the only thing directly present IN ALL production processes of
commodities at the same time (including services).

Do you want a proof? Please, don't go yet to your kitchen and don't cook:
simply tell the physical elements you have in it to produce for you whatever
you want, and let me see the results. Please feel free to tell them to use
any element that can enter _indirectly_ in whatever you want they cook for


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT