RE: [OPE] Services (->Paula)

Date: Thu Jan 15 2009 - 08:55:47 EST

> why doesn't advertising labor create surplus value, seeing that it does create a material effect?
Hi Paula:
Because its object is to _sell_ commodities rather than _produce_
them. It is not a tautology to point to the difference between
the production of value and its realization. Both are necessary moments
in the circuit of capital but they are different moments.
'> Socially necessary' in SNLT refers to 'time', not to 'labor';
It refers to both labor and time. It is also the case that for a commodity
to have value it must have use-value and uv incorporates a concept of
social necessity (although, what is considered to be socially
necessary varies temporally and spatially)
> > the meaning more of "objective existence".
> [clip] - the barberer, the >barber's tools, and the haircut itself all have an objective existence.
> Only the tools have an *independent* objective existence, therefore only the tools are objects.
No, the tools have an objective existence, but they are certainly not independent. The
tools were created and are employed by workers: there is an inter-dependency between
the laborer and the tools of labor.
> A barber is not an object,
A barber under capitalism is both a subject and an object. The same is true for all
> a haircut is not an object - though of course they have an objective existence,
It has an existence materially and temporally. Of course, it doesn't have
an existence "independently" since the barber, the person having the haircut,
the cut hair, etc. all have an inter-dependent relationship.
> The haircut doesn't exist independently from the customer; a haircut is therefore not an object, but a part of a subject;
> and so it cannot be exchanged.
The hair CAN be exchanged. Indeed, there is a lucrative market for human hair.
In solidarity, Jerry

ope mailing list
Received on Thu Jan 15 08:57:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EST