From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Mar 10 2007 - 07:50:16 EST
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > Yes, I think that labor power should be conceived of > as a > commodity. I was putting-off making the claim that > labor > power is a commodity, though, because I haven't > defined > value yet. ______________________ No definition of value is needed in defining labor-power as a commodity. ____________________ > I think this reflects a different understanding on > our parts of > what I am trying to do. I am not trying to solve a > mathematical > problem and the issue of the quantity of unknowns in > "my" > system is not my concern now. In other words, I am > not > going to be presenting a formal mathematical model. > Rather, > I am simply going to be explaining from my > perspective the > relation between different characteristics of the > subject. > In other words, I am trying to explain how certain > characteristics > are inter-related and associated with each other. In > so doing, > I expect in due course that you will be able to > identify what you > believe are problems with the propositions that I > advance > and I can address what you see as problems and we > can take it > from there. ___________________ Fine! go on! But keep in mind that when you say that constant capital is certain amount of given money, you are implicitly saying that *exchange ratios* of elements of constant capital is known. _______________ > There can be exchange-ratios even without commodity > production and money. E.g. exchange ratios can > develop > in a barter economy. But, we are discussing a > system in > which there are commodities, including a money > commodity > in the form of gold. So, I am saying that > *exchange-value* > is a quantitative measure of the relative value of > commodities > expressed in money. _____________________________ In your proposition #4 itself, you had written: "h) The exchange of commodities requires that there are *exchange ratios* which are expressed in terms of money (gold)." In proposition #1 you had already restricted the subject matter to capitalism. So in effect what you are doing is giving two names to the same thing. I see nothing in your proposition that says anything else than *exchage ratio* = *exchange value*. You can keep either of the expression, that's your chice, it does not make any difference to me. However, I think proliferation of terms for the same thing is a cause of confusion in Marxist literature and we will be better off keeping to *exchange ratio* whenever we mean the ratio of exchange of any commodity against gold. Your turn! Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT