[OPE-L:4829] Re: value vs potential value

Iwao Kitamura (ikita@st.rim.or.jp)
Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:14:29 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Michael L., thanks for the reply.

"Michael A. Lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> wrote:
>In message Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT),
> I'm not certain I understand the nature of the social process you have in
>mind. I interpret the above statement as some process within the sphere of
>production (of products) whereby concrete labours take the form of abstract

But I don't think "the mapping" that interpretes concrete labor to abstact labor
is formed merely within the sphere of production. It seems to me it's better to
assume that the form of the mapping is affected by any social factors and also
succeed the latest form of it. But once the mapping is given, the quantity
of abstarct labor spent in production is determined for any concrete labor as
a set of physiological expenditure of human power.
This is what I liked to write in response to your query[4683].

> On the other hand, your statement *below* seems consistent with the
>statement that the social process whereby products are proven to be
>commodities, containing not only concrete labour but also abstract labour,
>is the successful process of exchange--- ie., that the value is only
>potential and putative until that act.

If you use the word "potential" as "not represented", I think I'm not
against that the value is only potential until the successfull exchange.
("putative" seems to me too strong)
But I don't forget that the representation of the value proves the fact
that the value of the commodity is worth the quantity already determined
in production when it proves itself usefull for others.

>in what way is the first (the mapping) a
>social process? I don't recall 4618 and so don't know if you have already
>answered these questions.

Oh, this is heavy. I don't know exactly where to begin.

First, there must exist a function that determines what is the level and 'the type'
of physiological expenditure of human power that should be regarded as simple
labor. I think this fuction may change as the job structure changes.
But it seems to me too immediate to conclude that simple labor is regarded
as 'social average',though simple labor is determined as expenditure of
human power at 'normal' intensity. The skiiled labor that merely produces
more goods than simple has to be evaluated proportional to the ratio
of quantity of goods produced by it to that by simple labor.
Second, there must be a fuction that evaluates complicated labor
as some multiple of simple labor. This is so-to-say historical and cutural.
The mapping I assumed is one that both functions are integrated.

It is often said that de-skill-ization in industrialization norrowed the roll of
the second function. I'm not sure the trend continues today (in most of
capitalist countries).

in solidarity,

Iwao Kitamura

Iwao Kitamura