Thanks Chris. These past days you have been the 'source' of much light... now let's hope that on my side there will be some growing. comradely Nicky >>Response to Nicky [OPE-L:6963] >> >>On 'dimension' and 'magnitude' >> > >>Okay, I see now what you are getting at. I don't think there is any >>disagreement between us on the meanings of 'dimension' and 'magnitude'; >>rather, you are saying that in discussing magnitude I have not been >>sufficiently carefully in differentiating between: 1) labour and >>labour-power, and 2) between the source and the measure of value. Right? >> >Right but one must always be very careful to mark these distinctions. >Unfortunately below they are not. > >>>Of course it is not labour per se that is determinant; valorisation >>>form-determines production of value so that the dimension of abstract >>>labour is formed and its metric is time. Magnitudes of value are >>>proportional to SNLT at a V1 level. I would accept the proposition 'The >>>value dimension is a necessary presupposition of the abstract labour >>>dimension'. >> >>I agree that in V1 'magnitudes of value are proportional to SNLT', which >>implies that abstract labour can be measured in time units, at least in >>principle. Nevertheless, the argument for money as the sole measure of >>value (in R&W) seems to me quite independent of whether an 'immanent >>measure' of abstract labour (in time units) can be arrived at >>theoretically. > >Yes - I have no problem with that > > >What they question is the relevance of such a measure, >>given that SNLT can be verified as socially necessary *only* by virtue of >>the fact that it has assumed a monetary (social) form, a transformation >>that mucks up the gravitational field . > >The problem is what can be deduced from this 'only'; that SNLT is >verifiable 'only' in money does not mean it has no metric of its own. > > >But you >>seem to object to this with the argument that labour cannot be determined >>as valuable (or the source of value) through a monetary comparison of >>inputs and outputs, alone. > >oops. Labour is NOT valuable,this is JUST BECAUSE it is the source of value >(otherwise the explanation of value becomes circular/regressive). I would >not myself say 'source' but something formally similar in this context. One >reason I do not like source is that it can suggest some preexisting 'pool' >of value which would be objectionable. 'Source', however, has another sense >as in 'light is the source of vegetable growth'. The magnitudes of light >and of growth may correlate but are different dimensions. >But that the LTV cannot be established on the basis of a comparison of >monetary outputs and inputs alone is something I do hold. R&W present this >argument and I entirely reject it as a 'circulationist' misunderstanding of >what is going on, and which, incidentally, conflates labour and labour >power as well. >One problem in R&W flows from the strength of the argument about >precommensuration which attempts to bridge circulation and production, >something that needs doing, but it leads to the danger of reading back into >production the categories of circulation, so they write 'labour is ideal >value'; since I deny labour is value it isn't going to convince me to put >'ideal' in front of it; I would put what is meant, by the formula 'labour >in the production process ideally posits value'. Probably Geert would >accept this amendment. > >> What is required is a concept of value form, and >>a theory of how it is determining of the classical 'formulas'. I agree >>with you, and I feel confident that R&W agree also. > >I do not think so. I outlined my objections to R&W at great length orally >to Geert, and although he listened carefully I do not recall him saying >'Yes'! > > > The question is: *how* >>does an immanent time measure of SNLT help in this endeavour? How do you >>show that labour time is valuable, if in fact money is the only social >>measure of how valuable (or socially necessary) labour time is? >> >oops again: labour time is NOT valuable, only the product is valuable, and >then only because exchange says so. Once again I reiterate that I agree >with Marx that the L/LP distinction is crucial if we are going to get out >a coherent theory that is centred on production. The problem is we start >with a value form which ignores production so what is needed is a series of >steps that 'zero in' so to speak on production as the appropriate >'content'. But of course the form is real enough that all sorts of capitals >claim a share in the surplus product no matter how parasitic they are. At >this point I would like to refer you to a paper explianing my LTV but there >is not one! All I can refer you to is the last part of mY CApital and >CLass article. If I had a paper it would go: capital, time, circulation? >no; Production time? No. Labour time Yes. Capital can constitute itself >only through negating labour. Value is reifed labour. It and Surplus value >have magnitudes derived from Total social capital v. total labour, which >means the labour time measure reflects itself in the value measures. >Unfortunately I do not have a paper on transformation at all! But With many >capitals issues irrelevant to the class struggle come in, which are of >great interest to the form of capital such as organic composition, so >capitals start measuring their output and surplus product differently. This >obscures but does not cancel their fundamental constitution in class >struggle. If i wrote a paper on the technicalities it would probably come >out similar to that in Riccardo Bellofiore's work. > >Comradely > >Chris > > > >17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England > ----------------------- 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