(OPE-L) Re: is value labour?

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 08:00:35 EDT

• Next message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Re: FROP and revisionism"
• Previous message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Re: value and labour"
• In reply to: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?"
• Next in thread: Paul Zarembka: "Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Rakesh wrote on  May 11:

> I must be missing the point of this debate. The idea of the means of
> production representing congealed labor only clarifies that the
> concept of labor quantity is a composite one in the sense that it is
> incorporative of both what is normally referred to as labor as also
> of what is normally referred to as capital or man-man means of
> further production.

We have been debating whether "value is labour"  -- more specifically,
whether there is 'congealed' and 'crystallized' labor and whether that
labor can legitimately be said to be 'contained' or 'embodied in' a
commodity.   So the debate has been more general than a focus on
means of production (although I introduced that issue on Saturday
in  relation to how we comprehend 'dead and living labor').

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Re: FROP and revisionism"
• Previous message: gerald_a_levy: "(OPE-L) Re: value and labour"
• In reply to: Rakesh Bhandari: "Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?"
• Next in thread: Paul Zarembka: "Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 13 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT