From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 17:56:49 EST
>Christopher Arthur wrote: > >> Re Michael's 8081 of Cologne 28-Nov-2002 >> A long delayed reply on time. Of course when I say time is money I do not >> mean the dimension is time, what I mean is that the amount is a function of >> the time capital is tied up for. As far as I can see you think the deltaM >> is a contingent amount predicated on some Hayekian like creation out of >> market imbalence. But I would like to support a version of LTV as follows: >> Kapital situates production within the time of it own circuit of movement. >> This means that if the GRP functions as any kind of regulator of the >> strivings of individual capitals then there must be a form determining of >> the money measure such that in the first instance (there are many other >> instances, ioncluding contingencies) it is necessary according to the >> Concept of capital that each K is rewarded in proportion to the time for >> which it is tied up producing commodities, and in effect suffering a kind >> of freeze in its movement compared with an ideal K that produces >> instantaneously. The only way to for this to be acheived is to set the >> reward of the ideal K at zero and set a new value proportional to each LT >> such that every K valorises at the same rate. >> I am not saying SNLT is some originary principle but that the form of >> self-valorisation grounds itself in the exploitation of labour and it >> measures this ground according to its own form, i.e. not energy, not toil >> and trouble, not pleasant/unpleasant, or any other subjective perception of >> laborers, but objective time alone because for K time is money whereas for >> the peasant 'time costs nothing'. > >This version has little to do with labour, since time passes independently of >the expenditure of labour. Money in a bank account grows over time, >wine laid up in a vault rises over time. These, however are illusions >generated by the existence of interest. Agreed an argument for why labour is of the essence is needed but I was concentrating on why L is measured in time. This is not a natural fact about it but a socially determined one, as above. Chris 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EST