Chai-on wrote in [OPE-L:1777]:
> The magnitude of value is defined as the amount of labor embodied in the
> product. Jerry asked, if you prefer the term "embodied", could you
> please explain the meaning of that term as it relates to commodity
> values?". IMO, the embodied labor implies the labor was absorbed into
> the product in the sense that it was produced by labor.
> If, on the other hand, we define the value as the labor represented in
> the commodity value. Then, we should have to redefine the commodity
> value again without using the terminology, labor. Otherwise, it should
> be in a circle.
"... absorbed into the product"? Huh?
If one includes the expression "socially necessary labor time" , it is
self-evident that a commodity is the product of labor. Note, therefore,
that in the previous definition that included "represented", the value of
a commodity was defined with reference to labor.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry