Rakesh, a comment and questions: > No abstract labor is defined in terms of units of socially necessary labor > time. This goes without saying. Unless a commodity proves itself to have been socially necessary, i.e., > to have had a social use value, by having been sold for money, it will not > count as embodied abstract labor. Who or what is doing the 'counting'? Ie. what do you mean by 'not count'? Abstract labor thus does not have a distinct > existence from money....which does not mean that utility or use value > determines the magnitude of value. What do you mean by 'distinct existence'? (eg I explored different meanings of this concept in my previous posts) Andy > > Rakesh > > > > > > > > > > and that the > > distinct existence of abstract labor as a magnitude is necessary in order > > to provide a quantitative theory of value and surplus-value. > > > > Thanks again for the very productive discussion. > > > > Comradely, > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- End of forwarded message -------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT