From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 06:50:18 EDT
--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote: > >--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote: > >> >Because the product is not produced as an > immediate > >> object of > >> >consumption for the producers, but only as a > bearer > >> of value, as a > >> >claim, so to speak, to a certain quantity of > all > >> materialised social > >> >labour, all products as values are compelled to > >> assume a form of > >> >existence distinct from their existence as use > >> values. And it is > >> >this development of the labour embodied in them > as > >> social labour, it > >> >is the development of their value, which > determines > >> the formation of > >> >money, the necessity for commodities to > represent > >> themselves in > >> >respect of one another as money--which means > merely > >> as independent > >> >forms of existence of exchange value--and they > can > >> only do this by > >> >setting apart one commodity from the mass of > >> commodities, and all of > >> >them measuring their values in the use value of > >> this excluded > >> >commodity, thereby directly transforming the > labour > >> embodied in this > >> >exclusive commodity into general, social > labour. > >> > > >> >TSV III, p.144-145 > >____________________ > >The meaning of this passage is not very clear but > if > >it is saying, which it apparently is saying, that > the > >value of any commodity is determined by first > >determining how much of money commodity it > exchanges > >with and then multiplying that number with the > >concrete labor time embodied in the money > commodity, > >then it is theoretically simply wrong. > > No it is trying to explain why commodities have to > make that > dangerous leap (salto mortale, the Latin Marx uses > in Capital I, I > think) into money and why money comes to have > peculiar properties, > e.g. monopoly over direct exchangeability, and what > must have been > assumed about money to have those properties. ________________________ Rakesh, commodities are not dogs that take leaps, let alone "dangerous" ones. It is your mind that is taking dangerous leaps most of the times. By the way, why these have to be so dangerous? What kind of danger you think these commodities are in? _______________________ > > And value never results from adding up concrete > labors. ___________________ Then please tell us how do values of commodities turn out to be x,y,z, hours of labor? Please give me a straight answer to such a simple question, and not some kind of "dangerous leap of faith" or some such trash. _____________________ > > > > > Unless money > >commodity is something like silver littered on a > >beach, which can be simply picked up by bare hands, > >all money commodities are produced goods requiring > all > >kinds of constant capital items. Thus to determine > how > >much of labor time is embodied in a money commodity > >one has to be able to first figure out how much of > >labor time is embodied in those constant capital > >items, and that cannot be done unless you add > various > >concrete labors. > > Adding concrete labor labors never yields value. __________________ Then please tell us what "yields" numerical measure of value of any commodity? _______________________ > > > > > Thus the statement above gets into > >vicious circle. > > > But it's not what this statement is about. ___________________ Then what this statement is about? Cheers, ajit siha > > Yours, Rakesh > > >Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Domains ñ Claim yours for only $14.70/year > >http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 26 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT