[OPE-L:8282] philosophy and political economy and time

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 14:01:44 EST

Re Michael's 8081 of Cologne 28-Nov-2002
A long delayed reply on time. Of course when I say time is money I do not
mean the dimension is time, what I mean is that the amount is a function of
the time capital is tied up for. As far as I can see you think the deltaM
is a contingent amount predicated on some Hayekian like creation out of
market imbalence. But I would like to support a version of LTV as follows:
Kapital situates production within the time of it own circuit of movement.
This means that if the GRP functions as any kind of regulator of the
strivings of individual capitals then there must be a form determining of
the money measure such that in the first instance (there are many other
instances, ioncluding contingencies) it is necessary according to the
Concept of capital that each K is rewarded in proportion to the time for
which it is tied up producing commodities, and in effect suffering a kind
of freeze in its movement compared with an ideal K that produces
instantaneously. The only way to for this to be acheived is to set the
reward of the ideal K at zero and set a new value proportional to each LT
such that every K valorises at the same rate.
I am not saying SNLT is some originary principle but that the form of
self-valorisation grounds itself in the exploitation of labour and it
measures this ground according to its own form, i.e. not energy, not toil
and trouble, not pleasant/unpleasant, or any other subjective perception of
laborers, but objective time alone because for K time is money whereas for
the peasant 'time costs nothing'.
Of course for this to result in SNLT registering immediately as price
requires a huge cet par and it requires arguments for why LT is more
constitutive of value than e.g. turnover time. And then there is the
'revaluing' of specific Ls as a result of transformation, including skills
> Christopher Arthur <cjarthur@waitrose.com> schrieb  Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:01:08
>> Re: Michael's [OPE-L:8065]
>> AB> I would very be interested to see how you would theorise the
>> > magnitudes of wages and profits etc. My view is that this requires
>> > the LTV.
>> ME "The first step is to learn to see that the measure of abstract use or
>> abstract labour as it is practically brought about by universal commodity
>> exchange is not time, but money itself, which mediates commodity exchange.
>> That is, the measure itself is brought about by the abstract social
>> relation."
>> Hi Michael!
>> Surely you must know the basic truth of capitalist society "Time is Money"!
>> Why? Because your M in simple circulation has the form of measure but no
>> real determinate immanent dimension. But we know that what circulates are
>> capitalistically produced goods. How would competing capitals measure their
>> Cs? M is no good, because K is interested only in delta M, but moreover not
>> that alone but the fact that between M and Mprime is an interval during
>> which K is tied up. So Capitals must be compensated for their toil and
>> trouble i.e. the time for which they are tied up wrestling with matter.
>> Money IS time. Or more precisely value is crystalised time, the Dasein of
>> its Becoming, or essentially 'that which has become', which must bear
>> regular proportions to the time of their becoming for capital to persist
>> with them.
>> Chris
>> PS I will comment on substance when I have more time (!)
>> 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
>Hi there Chris, nice to hear from you again,
>Okay, you say that the "basic truth of capitalist society "Time is Money"!",
>capitalist society being economically sociated through the movement of value,
>i.e. the movement of money. This _movement_ takes place in time, and the
>success or otherwise of capital's movement is its augmentation: dM/dt.
>Maximization of dM/dt (no matter whether over the short or long run, but
>preferably long) is the abstract, simple striving of capital. In the world of
>business and finance, this is said thus: It's the bottom line that counts (at
>the end of a quarter, a year, in the long run).
>I presume that the value you are referring to as crystallized time is the
>dM --
>but I don't see any time in there. Rather, the time is in the quotient,
>(dt). dM is simply the difference M' (Mprime) minus M (the principal advanced,
>ventured, risk, employed). M' comes from the sale of the product C', i.e. from
>the valuation of C' on the market in which its value is recognized and
>appreciated by willing purchasers (either consumers or other capitalist
>companies) in paying for C'. No time in there either.
>In the production process P itself time affects dM/dt through productivity,
>i.e. how much product is produced in unit time. Ceteris paribus, the more
>produced in unit time, the better for capital augmentation, for this will
>augment proceeds (the top line).
>The shortening of turnover time (production phase plus circulation phase) also
>enhances capital augmentation ceteris paribus, but this too amounts to
>diminishing delta-t (dt) and thus increasing dM/dt.
>Ceteris paribus is important here mainly to say: As long as purchase and
>selling prices stay constant (which they don't of course -- but that doesn't
>matter so much if competing capitals are in the same situation).
>(The false semblance of SNLT causally determining the magnitude of value
>through the connection between increasing productivity, thus lowering
>costs and
>increasing output, and increased supply depressing selling prices. But
>there is
>a whole multitude of such ad hoc explanatory connections for
>understanding, all
>valid within their own scope, and each playing over the abyss of value
>formation. For instance, a company can invest in brand-building to enhance
>consumer desire for a given product, thus establishing a value-premium for the
>branded product -- Coca Cola being the most famous and successful example.
>Value out of the nothingness of human beings' desirous relation to things.)
>So I'd rather say: the movement of money as capital _squeezes_ (existential,
>lived, human) time, the squeezing being the striving to minimize delta-t. For,
>as you point out, capital also has to engage with things and humans. (And
>humans have their own motives for engaging with capital -- as entrepreneurs,
>managers, wage-earners, investors, lenders, land-owners.)
>This phenomenon of squeezing requires some further explication: Just as the
>practice of commodity exchange institutes the value dimension as a
>quantitative, monetary social dimension, the movement of value as capital is a
>movement within quantified time, delta-t (dt). The practice of capitalist
>production, too, M -- C (P) -- M+dM, is a quantified movement in quantified,
>measurable time t.
>But quantified, mathematically amenable time is not originary time, i.e. the
>three-dimensional existential timespace within which human being has a future,
>its present and its what-has-been. Existential timespace comes under the sway
>of quantified, linear time t through the movement of value as capital. Not
>are human powers (labour power, entrepreuneurial skill, etc.) quantified under
>the money-form, but human existential time is also subjected to the imperative
>of minimizing delta-t (dt). This could be called a squeezing of existential
>time by quantified time in the mathematically expressible principle/imperative
>of capital, viz.: maximize dM/dt..
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-  artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
>http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_-_-_- artefact@webcom.com
>_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-

17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 00:00:00 EST