From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sun Oct 02 2005 - 09:29:40 EDT
Hi Phil, I don't accept the premise "since aggregate value must equal aggregate labour." If new output equals zero, then _whatever the inputs in the form of circulating capital and labour_, the value of the new output must equal zero. This must be the case since without any commodity product the use-value must equal zero and hence the value must equal zero. While I don't want to take the materialization of labour too literally and corporally, there is a physical dimension to commodity output, whether that output is in the form of corn, etc. or services. Without any output, there is no physical or social corpus that can represent value. If and when the value of the output is less than the value of the inputs in the form of C + V, this is a consequence of the risk and uncertainty associated with the production and circulation of capitalist commodities. Simply because labour is expended in a productive form is not a sufficient condition for the actualization of value. I can see your point, though: an accountant would express such a situation as a debit with a negative sign: i.e. on the balance sheets this type of situation would appear as if it were "negative value." This is not, through, primarily an accounting issue: it is a question over what is constitutive of value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT