Re: (OPE-L) Ajit's paper

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 06:21:30 EDT


--- Riccardo Bellofiore <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>
wrote:
> At 0:22 -0700 1-06-2004, ajit sinha wrote:
> >--- Riccardo Bellofiore
> <riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT>
> >wrote:
> >>  Ajit,
> >>
> >>  on your first point, I wonder how you can think
> a
> >>  proposition can be
> >>  formally incorrect if it follows necessarily
> from an
> >>  argument
> >>  according to which all the social product
> represents
> >>  in money nothing
> >>  but living labour, extracted in a specifici
> social
> >>  way: the problem
> >>  may be how to articulate price and value, not
> that
> >>  value is "nothing
> >>  but" that monetary expression in that definite
> >>  social form.
> >________________________
> >
> >Riccardo, Let's leav aside the problem of what is a
> >"social product". It is not clear what you mean by
> >"all the social product", though. If you mean gross
> >product, then not many Marxists would agree with
> your
> >statement. My guess is that you mean net product.
> >Well, then now look at what could "living labour"
> >mean. Here you are talking about all the direct
> labor
> >performed in one production period. All these
> direct
> >labors are of different kinds, such as carpentary,
> >masonary, etc. They are different kinds of concrete
> >labor. So unless you somehow add up these concrete
> >labors you cannot put the so called "living labour"
> >against money, and that's your problem.
>
> No: because I have ante-validation through bank
> finance to
> production. I agree with you that without some
> social validation
> before exchange labours cannot be added. My point
> for me is that
> labour as labour, that is as activity, for Marx was
> clearly BOTH
> concrete and abstract (not immediately social, but
> tentatitvely so:
> Rubin). The point is that to secure this point the
> validation must be
> monetary, and must be ex ante.
______________________
How do you measure labor in terms of $? The unit of
labor is time. So we need to know how is labor
measured in terms of time.
___________________________
>
> >
> >My point was not that a statement such as "the
> value
> >of a commodity x is 10 hours of socially necessary
> >abstract labor" is wrong. Actually I think it is
> >right. But I want Rakesh or you or anybody else to
> >first commit that it is either right or wrong, so
> that
> >we can move to next logical stage of the problem.
> Now,
> >it appears that you think that the above statement
> is
> >right. Then we have to think how does one arrive at
> >the measure of "10 hours of labor".
> >______________________
>
> I think that to arrive to that - after one and forty
> hundred years -
> we have to change in some way the structure of the
> argument. Realize
> that Marx's was not an individual price theory
> (first); second,
> translate it in "macro" terms; third, assume that
> supply meets
> demand, not because of Say's Law but because of
> something akin to the
> principle of effective demand with short-run firm's
> expectations
> realized. One done that, I guess that you can say
> that value is C +
> mLL, where C = MPp also at the individual level.
__________________

Can you tell me what mLL and mPP stand for? Cheers,
ajit sinha
>
> But I am interested in reading your discussion with
> rakesh going on.
>
> riccardo
> --
>
> Riccardo Bellofiore
> Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche
> "Hyman P. Minsky"
> UniversitÓ di Bergamo
> Via dei Caniana 2
> I-24127 Bergamo, Italy
> e-mail:   riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it
> direct    +39-035-2052545
> secretary +39-035 2052501
> fax:      +39 035 2052549
> homepage:
http://wwwesterni.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT