From: Ian Wright (wrighti@acm.org)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2008 - 18:44:40 EDT
Hi Phil > I am saying that the expression 'value of labour' is irrational because > value and labour are identical. No-one would say "the value of embodied > labour ..." because the value of produced commodities and their embodied > labour is the same thing. Yes. And this is what Marx means when he underlines the irrationality of asking, "what is the labor-value of labor?" > Similarly, labour activity, or living labour, > and value creating activity are the same thing. Further, the > labour-power of the producer commodity and its value are the same thing. > Changed terminology is required to express this. Speak of embodied > labour value, value creating labour activity and labour-power value. > > This labour-power value has nothing to do with necessary labour time. If > measured in clock hours, one hour of the producer commodity hired means > one hour of labour-power value. Labour-power value is not embodied > labour. But I begin to lose you here. I think it's important that there be a quantitative difference between the labor-value of the real wage and the direct labor supplied. This difference is the source of new surplus-value. In your approach is this distinction lost? Best wishes, -Ian. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 00:00:10 EDT