Re: [OPE] peanut butter value-form theory

From: Paula <>
Date: Tue Apr 14 2009 - 18:03:18 EDT

> For one orange, yes, agricultural labor is not required.

If there is no labor, then obviously there is no embodied labor. Jerry,
remember that what you questioned was this notion of 'embodiment'.
Embodiment simply means that labor has made a physical change to the object
(perceptible to the human eye or not) - ie, that the labor is objectified.
So the question is whether an orange that has been grown by humans is
physically different from one that hasn't. If it isn't, then there's no
point in growing it.

> I think the subject of rent is relevant. To lay claim to a portion of the
> surplus value which is produced is not the same thing as producing surplus
> value.

Are you saying that PDVSA does not produce new value?

> The distinction between constant capital and variable capital does not
> exactly map onto the distinction between means of production and means of
> consumption. Also, there's faux frais of production.

My argument is very simply that capitalists engage in both productive and
unproductive consumption; and that each of these involves a different
relation to the object.



ope mailing list
Received on Tue Apr 14 18:05:27 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 12 2009 - 15:26:04 EDT