Re Diego's [7044]: > I think Brody says: There is no problem at all with the different kinds of labor. If it is true that in the aggregate the value of labor power is the value of the means of consumption needed to reproduce labor power, it will also be true at the disaggregate level. < Jerry replied [7045] >>Why must that "also be true"? And what level of aggregation are we talking about? >>Since the VLP "contains a historical and moral element" and therefore differs not only historically but for each society, the aggregate that you refer to above can not be the world capitalist economy but only an individual capitalist social formation. If that is the case, then how can different kinds of labor in different social formations be reduced to simple labor since "how much society needs" varies by country? Even in a single social formation, how do you arrive at the 'value' of the consumption bundle (means of consumption) in labour hours?: 1) how do you compare the different kinds of skills that go into producing different commodities, and reducing them to simple labour hours? Marx himself aimed to save the trouble of making this reduction, by considering labour time to be only an 'immanent measure' (i.e. not computable). 2) The actual measure is money; has to be. For one thing, money wages are paid before production but the real wage is known only after production. So the value of labour power is also only known after production in terms of what the real wage can buy (i.e. the consumption bundle, also priced in money terms). 3) Since we have money to measure value, why do you want to measure it in labour hours? (i.e. what's the point of doing so). To prove that labour power is the source of value what is needed is not an actual measure in time units but an argument that capital (in aggregate) makes a purchase external to itself (in the payment of wages) and that this is the source of an increase in money, M-C-M', once capital makes use of labour in production to produce commodities which have (potentially) a money price greater than the original advance. The transfer of means of production and natural resources (given universal property rights) cannot contribute to this increase since it is internal to the capitalist class (i.e. one capitalist's purchase is another's sale). The only advance at M, then, *is* the advance to labour. comradely Nicky ----------------------- Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT