[OPE-L:6329] Historical, real and current costs

Sat, 21 Mar 1998 14:12:51

Re the PIAF:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 11:01:37 -0500 (est)
> From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L] Re: Historical, real and current costs

Jerry: quick response to your post. (I have other things to do.)

> I think that the "time delay" issue is a dodge.

Does "dodge" mean "clever trick"?

> There is only a "time delay" here because:
> a) there is, by assumption, no living labour employed in the drying
> process.

I think this is what Andrew is proposing (he may clarify the point)
but I don''t find any strange or "tricky" in the example. Workers
made some pottery during 4 hours, then they put it under the solar
rays til is dry for 4 hours. They don''t use anything else to dry
the pottery. I think, it is quite "realistic" example and, certainly,
there is similar to Marx''s examples in Capital II, Ch. 13.
The point is Marx''s distinction between "production time" and
"working time". Do you think this distinction make sense?

> b) the drying process is, because of the above, held to be post-working
> time. If living labour was employed in the drying process (i.e. if a)
> is rejected), then wouldnt the drying process then be considered to be
> *part* of the working period?

Sure. But in that case we don''t have an example adequate to deal
with the distinction we (at least I!) are interested in: the
distinction between production time and working time. You would have
an example in which production time = working time, i.e. you don''t
have examples similar to those presented by Marx in the above cited

> c) it is assumed that there is no constant capital in the drying process
> and, therefore, value cant be transferred from the means of
> production.

I think this is assumed but, again, I don''t find anything tricky in
this. Means of production can be used during the *working time* and
their value transferred.

> In other words, he can claim a time delay only because he has excluded by
> assumption the other possibilities.

Sure. But this assumption is needed to deal with the distinction
between *working time* and *production time* which is a Marx''s
distinction, not Andrew''s. Do you think that this distinction is
"tricky", or "unrealistic"?