Re: measurement of abstract labor

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 09:03:39 EDT

--- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Hi Fred, Ajit and others
> Consider a C-M-C simple commodity economy with
> non-commodity money,
> i.e. non-produced tokens. Assume all commodities are
> basic and do not
> require other commodities as inputs.

This is where your story ends, Ian! Once a commodity
"do(es) not require other commodities as inputs" you
are in a world of silver pickers on a beach. The value
theory does not get into any kind of problems without
conastant capital--no transformation problem, nothing.
The real bitch is the constant capital, which you are
assuming away. And without constant capital, you
cannot think of capitalism.

By the way, a basic commodity means that it is
directly or indirectly an input in the production of
all commodities. So you must mean non-basic in your
above quote.

Below you mention Ulrich Krause. I think Krause is the
only serious book I have come across on this kind of
issue. As a matter of fact, in my entry on ‘Labour
Theory of Value’, Readers Guide to Social Sciences,
(ed.) Jonathan Michie, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers,
London, 2001. Also reprinted in Encyclopedia of Social
Sciences (2002) by the same publisher, I have selected
Krause among the ten important publications I have
discussed there on the issue. Cheers, ajit sinha

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT