From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sat Apr 14 2007 - 07:04:04 EDT
> In any case, here is a short excerpt from the > paper that shows where Jerry might be coming from and > why it does not work (I have taken one interpretation > here but all other interpretation would fail in a > similar way): > Another strategy of relating labor to commodity > exchange ratios is provided in Marx's famous letter of > July 11, 1868, to Ludwig Kugelmann. In this letter > Marx writes, > . All that palaver about the necessity of proving the > concept of value comes from complete ignorance both of > the subject dealt with and of scientific method. Every > child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will > not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would > perish. Every child knows, too, that the volume of > products corresponding to the different needs require > different and quantitatively determined amounts of the > total labour of society. That this necessity of the > distribution of social labour in definite proportions > cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form > of social production but can only change the mode of > its appearance, is self-evident. Natural laws cannot > be abolished at all. What can change in historically > different circumstances is only the form in which > these laws assert themselves. And the form in which > this proportional distribution of labour asserts > itself, in a social system where the interconnection > of social labour manifests itself through the private > exchange of individual products of labour, is > precisely the exchange value of these products. (Marx > and Engels 1982, 196). > This letter has been invoked most frequently in the > defense of Marx's 'labor theory of value'. > Unfortunately the meaning of the passage quoted above > is not "self-evident". Hi Ajit: I'm sorry: I hadn't replied to a few of your recent messages. Basically, I think that we've been talking about different things. Actually, I agree that the reasoning suggested by Marx in his 1868 letter to Kugelmann isn't very persuasive. Since I am not relying on such (trans-historical) reasoning, I didn't feel the need previously to respond. From my perspective, the role of value for capitalism can not be deduced from the nature of labor in all modes of production. btw, I haven't forgotten about our numerical (i.e. numbered proposition) exchange. I'll get back to it ... eventually. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:16 EDT