From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 06:20:26 EST
--- Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES> wrote: > Ajit: > This is trivial, isn't it? Who has ever denied that > in > > most of the cases (sometimes you can find use > values > > as spontaneous product of nature--as a matter of > fact > > a great many important use values such as air you > > breathe) labor is an element in production > process. > > All economics, including neoclassical economics > assume > > 100% of times that labor is an essential element > in > > the production process. So what are you trying to > say > > here? > > _____________________________ > > > You are distorting my words: > I don't say that labour is an element in production > process, but the ONLY > active element. More precisely: without labour you > don't have ANY _process_ > at all in the long run. But with labour you always > have a production process > no matter how difficult it can become. You will need > time, of course. But > without labour no passing of time will help you to > get a production. > > And I repeat: Even if it is possible to say that > other things enter directly > OR indirectly in the production of all commodities, > the truth is that labour > is the ONLY ONE that enters directly--IN ADDITION TO > indirectly--in the > production of ALL commodities. > > That means that labour is different from other > elements in production > because it is the only thing directly present IN ALL > production processes of > commodities at the same time (including services). ___________________________________ Okay, let's say I say a commodity x is produced by 2 tons of steel, 5 tons of coal, and 8 hours of labor. You say no! I'm distorting your words, and I should have said that a commodity x is produced by 2 tons of steel, 5 tons of coal and 8 hours of ACTIVE labor. So I follow you and put "active" before labor in the description of the production of all the commodities x,y, z etc. How does it prove LTV? That is my question. By the way, the way you are arguing might get you in trouble with Marx. Marx was not making distinction between labor-power and other means of production on the basis that labor is the active element. If horse is used in the production process, is the horse an active element or not? The significance of labor in the production process is basically use of mechanical energy. Labor-power is stored (or potential) energy which gets released in the production process in a similar way as the energy of coal gets released when it is burnt in the production process. There are good quality works within Marxist literature that show how capitalism has gradually tried to reduce laborer from having any control over the process of production to a mere cog in the machine. That is why it is within the realm of imagination that the capitalist system could become completely automated with advancement in robotic technology. The tragedy of the situation is that the only active element in the production process is the guy who sets the speed of the assembly line and gives order to the robots as well as the workers what jobs need to be performed. If Marx distinguishes labor, it is at the level of social relations of production and not at the level of the physical production process. But I have a feeling I'm wasting time here, so we might as well stop this thread. Cheers, ajit sina ______________________ > > Do you want a proof? Please, don't go yet to your > kitchen and don't cook: > simply tell the physical elements you have in it to > produce for you whatever > you want, and let me see the results. Please feel > free to tell them to use > any element that can enter _indirectly_ in whatever > you want they cook for > you. > > Cheers, > Diego > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT