From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Jun 13 2007 - 05:01:05 EDT
The critical point here is the definition of socially necessary. If one takes it to be the most productive hours, then the total hours worked in the economy > total socially necessary labour time, since the average labour in any branch will be less productive than the most productive. I take the definition of socially necessary to be the amount of labour of average productivity that would be required to produce something. If one takes this definition then total concrete= total abstract. The main problem comes from the existence of differential ground rent. If one defines the socially necessary labour to produce crops to be the labour on the marginal land, then total concrete labour < total socially necessary labour. This is an inherent weakness/ambiguity of the concept of socially necessary labour time when non-labour constraints on productivity become significant. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Ian Hunt Sent: 13 June 2007 01:26 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital I think it must be a bit more complicated than that. We might equate the total hours of abstract labour with the total hours of concrete labour, but when it comes to socially necessary abstract labour, which is what money expresses, if 8 hours of concrete skilled hours is four times as productive as 8 unskilled hours of the same kind of work, then the 8 hours of unskilled work will equal 2 hours of socially necessary abstract labour if the skilled work equals 8 hours of socially necessary abstract labour. A better way of determining the total amount of abstract labour in hours would be to take each kind of concrete labour-ie, labour producing a specific use value-and find the total of hours of work equal to the most productive hours worked (which is one conception of socially necessary abstract labour) or the total number of hours equal to the productivity of the work that earns the average return (another conception of socially necessary abstract labour as the labour of the market price setting technique of production). >By adding up the hours of work done, you'd be abstacting from other human >activities, etc., but you would not be abstracting from the activity of >labor. You would be counting hours of concrete labor. Still, I agree with >your proposition because the totality of concrete labor is all there is to >constitute abstract labor. Total concrete labor necessarily equals total >abstract labor. > >Howard > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> >To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> >Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:12 PM >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital > > >Michael >------- > >You could do that, but then you would be ignoring abstraction altogether. > > >On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:05:04AM +0100, Paul Cockshott wrote: >> Michael P >> >> What I meant was that it is hopeless to think that anyone could >> quantify the amount of abstract labor in an economy. >> ------------ >> Paul C >> >> Why not just add up the number of people who work then multiply by >> the fraction of the year that they each work? >> > > > >On the contrary I would be using abstraction, since I would by >adding up all the hours of work done, be abstracting from the concrete >form in which the work was done, and counting it only as human labour >in general --- in the abstract. > > >-- >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >Chico, CA 95929 > >Tel. 530-898-5321 >E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >michaelperelman.wordpress.com -- Associate Professor Ian Hunt, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT