In response to Riccardo [OPE-L:645]
Yes, there is a terminological not a substantial difference between us.
My terminology:
(A) Dead labor: (a) embodied (or congealed) labor or (b) represented labor
* Both (a) and (b) have a dual character as (x) concrete labor and
(y) abstract labor.
(B) Living labor: also has a dual character as both (c) concrete labor and
(d) abstract labor.
(1) In the sequence of "from labor to value", the labor was (B-d).
(2) In the sequence of "from value to labor", the labor was (A-b-y).
(3) In the substance of value, the abstract labor was (B-d).
(4) In the sequence of "from use-value to labor", the labor is (A-b-x)
(5) In the sequence of "from labor to use-value", the labor was (B-c).
(6) In a potential value, the labor was (A-a-y)
(7) In a realized value, the labor was (A-b-y)
(*) In your <value=labor>, the labor can only be (A-a-y).
(*) In your <value form>, the labor was (A-b-y)
Any labor in the above has the character of abstract labor. But the
substance of value is not any labor, it is only (B-d).
Perhaps, we share the same content in arguments but use different
terminology. Which one to choose may be determined by its practical
advantages, eg. clearity, convention, etc.
PS: I fail to see what you are talking about in the reply to my point.
My point was this: if money is a mere symbol, it then would be by
definition a purely social one, and then it could not be owned privately,
nor privately produced. A mere symbol cannot have a value, then it
cannot measure a value, then it cannot function as money. As against
this argument, you are talking about 'history intervention', 'unstable
economy', central banking, PKT(?) list, Austrian econ list. What is PKT?
(I am also going out from 17 Dec. for a few weeks)
Thanks again,
Chai-on Lee