Jerry wrote in [2360]:
While land (potentially or actually) has use-value and exchange-value, it does not by itself have value since it is not a
product of human labor. In that sense, I think it is mistaken to refer to
land as a commodity even though it comes to have an exchange
value and is bought and sold on the marketplace.
Question:
If land is excluded from the category of the commodity for the reason that
it has no value. Then the LTV could not but become a tautology.
To say that the value of commodities are created by labor only after
excluding the non-labor products from the captegory of commodity?
But we can argue that the substance of value is labor even without
precluding the non-labor products from the category of commodity if
we properly interpret the meaning the substance.
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Chai-on