> Jerry, it is not that labour-value is natural or eternal or that serves in an underlying
> organising principle of all societies.
> As I wrote previously:
> As soon as society's labour is not performed in isolation but is compared in some way
> then it is meaningful to speak of abstract labour. Production for market exchange is
> not the only way in which concrete labours are compared. Public works (the construction
> of large-scale dams, irrigation and monuments) is another ancient way in which the
> abstract potential of labour is treated in a real process.
> Where do you disagree with this?
Dave Z:
I don't disagree with the claim that there have been a variety of ways historically
by which concrete labors have been compared. I disagree with the perspective that
says that whenever and wherever there can be comparisons made of the
productivity of direct producers that you thereby have abstract labor and value.
(btw, I find the expression 'labor-value' to be redundant - just like the expression
'productivity of labor' instead of productivity). I think you are identifying 'socially
equalized labor' with abstract labor (on this point, see Rubin Ch. 14:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch14.htm).
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Feb 17 08:43:32 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT