[OPE-L:5057] Re: question

riccardo bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Sat, 17 May 1997 08:20:18 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

At 15:53 -0700 16-05-1997, Gerald Levy wrote:
>Ajit wrote in [OPE-L:5042]:
>> Your [Duncan's, JL] one concern is about
>> "abstraction" of labor, because you think concrete labor cannot be
>> added or compared, and this takes you to the point of commodity
>> exchange. But it seems to me that many people have not realized that
>> the problem, if it is a problem, would arise much before you get to
>> exchange. Go to any factory, say a car factory. A car is not produced
>> with one kind of concrete labor, leaving the constant capital element
>> aside. All kinds of different kinds ofconcrete labor go into producing
>> anything, so if concrete labors cannot be added, it cannot be added
>> even at the factory level. So the problem does not arise in the
>> context of comparing two commodities in exchange, but much
>> before that.

Just for the record, I fear the concern is mine and not Duncan's. The point
is: if this is a serious problem, how can it be said that value is created
in production and only afterwards realized in circulation? Even for net
product as the result of direct labour, the question remains: how can the
labour producing the net product being considered as homogeneous before
circulation? If so, talking of a postulate or stipulation, without further
qualifications, may be is not enough. I insist that I am sympathetic with
Duncan's strictures on the issue of production and circulation. The problem
however remains.