From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Mar 08 2007 - 11:06:46 EST
I'm okay with most of what you say, but some problems have begun to appear. You write: "i) because all production takes the form of commodity production and all goods sold are commodities, this requires that both labor time and means of production take the form of commodities. Define the amount of money which is used to purchase means of production as *constant capital* and the amount of money used to hire wage-workers as *variable capital*." __________________________ Two problems: First of all, if labor-time ia a commodity then labor-power is not a commodity. Taking labor-time as a commodity would create severe problem in developing the notion of surplus value to you. So you should clarify whether you mean that it is the labor-power that is a commodity, and if so, then define labor-power or maintain that labor-time is a commodity, but then explain how. Secondly, and much more importantly, you cannot define constant capital in terms of money because it presumes that prices (or exchange ratios) of commodities are already known. But actually they are the unknown of your system. You cannot begin by presuming your unknown to be already known. In other words, the amount of capital cannot be defined prior to the knowledge of prices (or exchange ratios). ___________________________ You further say: "k) since commodities are produced with the intention of being sold, they must also have an *exchange-value*. Although the exchange-value of commodities is *presumed* (by the seller) before sale based on past transactions, it is only *known* once it has been sold on the market." ______________________ Since you have already defined *exchange ratios*, the meaning of the new term *exchange value* is not clear. It is also not clear what is the relevance of "presumptions" of sellers etc. Cheers, ajit sinha --- glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > Now we turn to discuss at greater length the > character of > *commodities* [NB: plural, i.e. commodities, not > commodity.] > > In Proposition #2, we agreed on the following > initial (standard) > definition (slightly modified to make plural). > > "commodities are any goods or services which are > produced with > the intention of selling them in order to make a > profit". > > From this definition, and other stipulations > already made, > a number of statements can be made: > > a) commodities are *produced*. > > b) production requires the expenditure of *human > labor*. > > c) *capitalist production* requires the expenditure > of human labor > by wage-workers (see proposition #2). > > d) capitalist production ordinarily involves the > performance of labor > by workers utilizing *means of production*. Those > means of production > themselves are commodities. The ownership and > control of those means of > production are, as we've already stipulated, key to > the class relationship > that exists under capitalism. > > d) the expenditure of labor requires that the > producers (wage-workers) > expend energy during a period of *labor time*. > > e) the definition of capitalism used (see > proposition #2) means that > capitalists control the labor and labor time of > wage-workers. > > f) the definition of commodities indicates that > commodities are produced > in order to be *sold*. The *sale* of commodities > requires not only > exchange but *money* and *markets*. > > g) assume, as a simplifying assumption, that money > also is a commodity. > For the purposes of the model, assume that the money > commodity is > *gold*. > > h) The exchange of commodities requires that there > are *exchange ratios* > which are expressed in terms of money (gold). > > i) because all production takes the form of > commodity production and > all goods sold are commodities, this requires that > both labor time and > means of production take the form of commodities. > Define the amount > of money which is used to purchase means of > production as *constant > capital* and the amount of money used to hire > wage-workers as > *variable capital*. > > j) if products did not have a utility (a quality of > being useful) for > someone else, then they would not be produced or > purchased as commodities. > This follows from the definition of commodities > since they are produced > in order to be sold rather than individually > consumed by the direct > producers or by the class which controls the labor > of the direct > producers and owns the means of production (the > capitalists). Hence, > commodities must have a *use-value*. > > k) since commodities are produced with the intention > of being sold, they > must also have an *exchange-value*. Although the > exchange-value of > commodities is *presumed* (by the seller) before > sale based on past > transactions, it is only *known* once it has been > sold on the market. > > To be continued -- assuming there is agreement on > the above. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > > Capitalism is understood here as a *mode of > production* > > in which there is: > > > > * private ownership and control of the means of > production by > > capitalists where > > * capitalists hire wage-workers > > * in order to produce *commodities* > > * for the purpose of making a *profit*. > > > > In this abstract model of 'pure' capitalism, there > are *only 2 > > classes*: capitalists, who have a monopoly of > ownership and > > control of means of production, and wage-workers > who > > neither own nor control any means of production. > > > > Let's use the following *initial definition* of > commodity (to > > be developed at greater length as we proceed): > > > > * any good or service which is produced with the > intention > > of selling it in order to make a profit. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT