Paul C wrote in [OPE-L:1800] -!-:
> My definition:
> 1. The value of a product is the portion of society's labour
> needed to reproduce it.
Where is the concept of socially necessary labor (time) in the above
definition? Concrete, as distinct from abstract, labor could be seen as
the source of value using the above, couldn't it?
> 2. The value of a commodity is either the value of the product
> that embodies it, or, in the case of a commodified service,
> the direct and indirect portion of society's labour required
> to perform it.
In addition to the objection indicated above, what do you mean by the
expression "embodies it" and how would you answer critics of the embodied
labor concept (like Alan and Andrew?)?
> 3. The exchange value of a commodity is the set of triples
> {[q1,u1,c1], [q2, u2, c2], ... etc } where
> qi is a rational number
> ui is a unit of measure ( grams, litres etc )
> ci is some category of use value ( corn, olive oil etc )
> for which the commodity will exchange
Huh?
> 4. The price of a commodity is the set of pairs
> { [q1, m1], [q2, m2] .... etc }
> where qi is a rational number, and mi a unit of
> currency.
Ditto. What is the relation between the exchange value of a commodity and
its monetary expression? What kind of price are you talking about here?
How can we determine the "price" of a commodity before transformation?
As for Paul C's #1799, there was no indication in the definition that I
gave that "the representation is performed not by production but by sale
...."
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry