Re: [OPE-L] Proposition #4

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Mar 10 2007 - 07:50:16 EST

--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote:

> Yes, I think that labor power should be conceived of
> as a
> commodity.   I was putting-off making the claim that
> labor
> power is a commodity, though,  because I haven't
> defined
> value yet.
No definition of value is needed in defining
labor-power as a commodity.

> I think this reflects a different understanding on
> our parts of
> what I am trying to do.  I am not trying to solve a
> mathematical
> problem and the issue of the quantity of unknowns in
> "my"
> system is not my concern now.  In other words, I am
> not
> going to be presenting a formal mathematical model.
> Rather,
> I am simply going to be explaining from my
> perspective the
> relation between different characteristics of  the
> subject.
> In other words, I am trying to explain how certain
> characteristics
> are inter-related and associated with each other. In
> so doing,
> I  expect in due course that  you will be able to
> identify what you
> believe are problems with the propositions that I
> advance
> and I can address what you see as problems and we
> can take it
> from there.
Fine! go on! But keep in mind that when you say that
constant capital is certain amount of given money, you
are implicitly saying that *exchange ratios* of
elements of constant capital is known.
> There can be exchange-ratios even without commodity
> production and money.  E.g. exchange ratios can
> develop
> in a barter economy.  But, we are discussing a
> system in
> which there are commodities, including a money
> commodity
> in the form of gold.  So, I  am saying that
> *exchange-value*
> is a quantitative measure of the relative value of
> commodities
> expressed in money.
In your proposition #4 itself, you had written: "h)
The exchange of commodities requires that there are
*exchange ratios* which are expressed in terms of
money (gold)." In proposition #1 you had already
restricted the subject matter to capitalism. So in
effect what you are doing is giving two names to the
same thing. I see nothing in your proposition that
says anything else than *exchage ratio* = *exchange
value*. You can keep either of the expression, that's
your chice, it does not make any difference to me.
However, I think proliferation of terms for the same
thing is a cause of confusion in Marxist literature
and we will be better off keeping to *exchange ratio*
whenever we mean the ratio of exchange of any
commodity against gold. Your turn! Cheers, ajit sinha

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

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