Andrew K wrote near the end of [OPE-L:3168]:
> A labor-hour is a labor-hour is a labor-hour, and in Marx's
> theory, and hour of labor always adds the same value (in labor-time terms).
While a labor-hour is a labor-hour is a labor-hour (and a rose is a rose
is a rose), this doesn't mean that that an "hour of labor always adds the
same value".
What is missing from the above is the concept of *socially-necessary*
labor time.
[Putting aside the question of skilled and unskilled labor and accepting
the stipulation that value is created in production and not exchange],
doesn't what becomes socially-necessary labor time *change* historically?
If that is the case, then shouldn't we include the *possibility* that
there can be a change in the value created by an hour of
[socially-necessary] labor *WITHIN* a production period (*even if*
ordinarily such changes occur over a longer time horizon]? That is, can't
there be a change in what is understood as socially-necessary labor time
within a production period?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry