[ show plain text ]
Re Mike W's [OPE-L:2070]:
> What is the connection between surplus-value and surplus (unpaid) labour
> time? Check VFS: 70:
> 'The argument that only labour potentially creates value-added should in no
> way be read to imply that value-added is in some way proportional to labour
> (for which at this level an aggregative measure is anyway lacking), as a
> labour-embodied theory of value would have it. It is only the validation of
> labour and its products in the market that determines where and how much
> value(-added) is actualised.'
Without some concept of labor time, how can the two forms of surplus
value (relative s and absolute s) be theorized?
> a) Labour power is produced - but not primarily 'capitalistically'
> b) The price of labour-power is not systematically related to it's
> (non-existent) price of production. The 'supply price' contains no
> value-added. The household (site of creation, physical reproduction and
> primary socialisation of labour 'into' labour power) is not a firm. People
> are not produced as commodities by socially validated abstract labour.
> This seems to be the sticking point - see the several extended OPE-L
> discussions of the VF notion that Labour Power is not a Commodity.
Well, I agree with a) and b), but ...
(To others as well) What is gained and lost by conceptualizing labour
power as a very, very special (i.e. unique) commodity vs. conceiving of it
as not a commodity?
> Comradely greetings (especially to Geert!)
Together at last!
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST