Re: [OPE] Brecht and value-form theory

Date: Wed Mar 18 2009 - 08:30:09 EDT

> I prefer the distinction between labor-embodied and labor-commanded.
> In your poem the commodity had positive labor-embodied but commanded
> zero labor. In other words, labor was expended to make it, but no
> labor can be had in exchange for it.
> So the labor used-up did not count as social labor. Nonetheless the
> commodity had positive labor-value.
> Labor-embodied and labor-commanded are different. The task is to
> understand their casual connection during the process of production
> and circulation.

Hi Ian:

The *link* between the labor time expended in production ('labor
embodied') and 'labor commanded' is *socially necessary labor time*
(SNLT). For labor time to count as SNLT, it must not only be expended
at a certain customary average intensity but it must take the form of being
socially necessary which can only be known after the commodity has
been sold and the use-value and value which was _presumed_ to exist
in the mind of "the careful capitalist" has been shown to _actually_ exist.
If there is 'labor embodied' in commodity production but the product
doesn't have a use-value, then that labor in actuality doesn't count _as
value_. In other words, 'labor embodied' _by itself_ does not determine

In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
Received on Wed Mar 18 08:32:16 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT