From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Jun 07 2006 - 22:23:14 EDT
> That was a difficult question. Hi Hans: Thanks. I consider that a compliment. > Here it is tempting to say that labor-power is congealed > labor in the body of the laborer, and the laborer's dinner > transfers the value of the food consumed to the value > of that commodity. I don't think it is the right way to > look at this. If you wanted to go down this road, then > it would be difficult to explain why the value of the food > consumed enters the value of labor-power, but the cooking labor > does not contribute to the value of labor-power. One could be able to think of the food as an intermediate good. Yes? If cooking labor is employed by capital and takes the form of wage-labor why doesn't it contribute to the VLP? After all, doesn't educational labor employed by capital and taking the form of wage-labor contribute to the VLP? Is it (recalling the comments of Barry Brooks) related to durability? > Labor-power is traded as a commodity, but it is in many > respects different from ordinary commodities. We're in agreement here. > It is not > produced in order to be sold, but the worker must sell it in > order to continue to live. Therefore I do not consider > labor-power to be "one portion of the commodity product" as > you say, and the national income and wealth accounts do not > consider it that way either. I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning. So, workers must sell LP in order to live. Why does this mean that LP isn't part of the commodity product? I think some part of your argument is unstated. As for NIPA, I don't think that's relevant since it is constructed using a very different theoretical framework > I would > consider it a transfer payment which is subject to economic > laws similar to those governing the exchange of commodities, > but it nevertheless different from ordinary commodity exchange. Transfer payment? I don't follow. Why a transfer payment? > This is my own thinking; Marx himself is vague about this point. Yes, that's one reason why it makes an interesting question. > Whereas he makes detailed arguments in chapter 8 why the value > of the means of production is transferred to the end product, > he does not make such arguments regarding labor-power > but simply says in chapter 6 that > > the labor-time necessary for the production of labor-power > > resolves itself into that necessary for the production of > > those means of subsistence; in other words, the value of > > labor-power is the value of the means of subsistence > > necessary for the maintenance of its owner. > (my own translation). "Resolves" is a very vague formulation > which can mean many things. Agreed. I rather like the vagueness: it encourages us to think through the matter for ourselves. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT