At 05:28 AM 4/11/97 -0700, Jerry Levy wrote:
>Ajit wrote in [OPE-L:4725]:
>
>
>> So I ask you and the others on
>> ope-l who believe in the 'market does it' theory to present their coherent
>> case first before we prove our general charge. So let us begin with a
>> simple question: when you say that a commodity, say x has 5 hrs. of
>> labor as its value, how do you arrive at that particular quantitative
>> valuation in labor-time units?
>
>==========================================================================
>
>*If* it's a commodity which is sold at its *SOCIAL* value, then the
>quantitative result would be the same.
__________________
How do you determine "*SOCIAL* value", and it would be the same to what?
_____
>
>However ...
>
>*before* one arrives at a "particular quantitative valuation in labor-time
>units", one must first take a position on the conceptual issues.
>
>(repetition follows)
>
>For instance:
>
>1) Labor-time in general does not create value -- it must be
> *socially-necessary* labor time.
____________
And how is "socially necessary labor time determined?
______
>3) It can not be known prior to circulation whether products will have a
> use-value since that fact or non-fact is validated or non-validated in
> exchange.
__________________
You have been making this point quite repeatedly. I think, it is, however,
quite a static approach being repeated by some one who swears by dynamics
even in his sleep. The value problematic can only be understood in a
reproduction framework. The goods which are non-reproducible and the goods
which have no use-value canot be placed withing a reproductive framework,
and so are out of the pale from the very begining. There can be goods with
prices but no value, they are the pure scarce goods. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>
>