From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 14:16:12 EDT
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Claus Magno wrote: > I'm aware of the fact that > the amount of time does not appear as a palpable physical or chemical > property of the commodity and is a purely social entity (a social average of > the particular times spent by the several producers). But no doubt each > commodity requires a definite amount of time (as a social average) to be > produced and in this sense expresses this amount of time in its natural or > physical form. I think if we were to stay with 'expresses' we would be not have much difference between us, but ... > I hope I have clarified my understanding of this point above. Since the > computer monitor requires a definite amount of social time, one can say that > it "contains" value (I think Marx uses the same concept), but obviously not > in a physical sense. your verb above, 'contains', seems different than 'expresses'. > The monitor is obviously the product not of the hours but of > the labour, but it is clearly the product of a definite amount of labour in > the abstract, hours or days or whatever (as a social average). Doesn't this read that the monitor is 'not' the product of labor hours, but 'is' "the product of a definite amount of labor in the abstract, hours", i.e. labor hours? The wording is so close as to be identical. I think you are looking for labor hours to be 'in' a commodity, which seems to be an empiricist essentialism. Am I incorrect? Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 11 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT