RE: [OPE] peanut butter value-form theory

Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 08:32:29 EDT

> A cracker (contaminated or not) embodies abstract labor.
Hi Paula:
Well, I think that the idea that a commodity "embodies" abstract labor
(and value) is misleading. If a commodity "embodies" value, or "contains"
labor - including "crystallized" or "congealed" labor, then I'd like
someone to show me that "substance". Actually, a commodity is an expression
and consequence of a particular set of social relationships.
Perhaps this is the genesis of your belief about whether services which
take the commodity form can represent value? Clearly, an activity itself,
like hairdressing, can not "embody" abstract labor - in the _literal_ sense.
So, maybe it's a question of you taking a literal expression and applying
it too literally ...? (Here I'm thinking out loud.)
> Whether this abstract labor appears as value or not depends
> on whether the cracker is being exchanged or not.
Well, we're going around in circles, I think. I gather you understand
'abstract labor' in a similar trans-historical sense as Paul C, Dave Z,
and Jurriaan? As I have explained before, whether that is the case is
tied to your understanding of SNLT and the relation of use-value to
labor time.
In solidarity, Jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
Received on Tue Mar 31 08:35:19 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 02 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT