Chai-on wrote in [OPE-L:2366]:
> To say that the value of commodities are created by labor only after
> excluding the non-labor products from the captegory of commodity
> is the same as saying that all the balls in a sack is yellow without
> allowing non-yellow balls to be put into the sack, which Bohm Bawerk
> already pointed out.
In examining the total set (sack), we could say there there are sub-sets
(sacks)of a) commodities; and b) "quasi-commodities, i.e. those objects which
come to have both a use-value and an exchange-value, but do not have value
since they are objects or services that are not produced by labor. Perhaps
another sub-set could be reserved for labor-power since while, according
to Marx, it becomes a commodity, it is also a very *unique* commodity (in
several fundamental ways).
> Products of nature alone can only become a commodity when they are
> sold and bought with money. Usually reporducible and reproduced
> goods are commodities but land is not reproducible and yet is sold and
> purchased with money. What determines their value? No, they have no
> value but a price form. Its price is determined by the supply and
> demand which rely on its rent.
I would say rather that there are certain objects which are treated on the
market _as if_ they are commodities. I think this is the point that Marx
makes in the quote you reproduced in [OPE-L:2365].
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry