From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2006 - 05:45:26 EDT
> > > >>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. >> >> I dont see that any of this is very complicated. What one is trying to do is work out how much of society's total time must be expended to produce a product. If one wants to work out how much time goes into the production of bread for example, one has to ignore the labour content of the bread eaten by the bakers themselves or one would end up with the value of the net product of society that is greater than the total number of hours worked. Worse than that, your accountig system would make it appear that the value of the social product grew uncontrolably even if the labour force was fixed. Each year you would be attributing to the consumer goods, the value of the consumer goods eaten the previous year giving rise to an unlimited inflation in your system of valuation. -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT