Michael L., sorry for this out-dated response.
"Michael_A._Lebowitz" <mlebowit@sfu.ca> wrote in 4683F
> What about the rest of that consensus that Alan seemed to have forged---
>Alan, Iwao, Alejandro, Paul, Andrew? How do you reconcile your position with
>Marx's above statement?
As I wrote in 4618, the quantity of value is determined in production as
the quantity of abstract labor derived from a set of physiological expenditures
of human power necessary for the production. The key problem is the mapping that
derives quantity of abstract labor from a set of expenditures of human power.
I wrote that the mapping is *a social process*.
This is a bit sketchy but,
quantity of value <- quantity of abstract labor
= F: a set of expenditure of human power
If we can describe a set of expenditure of human power as a vector EHP then we
may at least state that F: k*EHP= k*F: EHP for any scalar k. This is what Marx
wrote about labor time.
The form of the mapping F may change over time according to the change of society.
But since the change of society is an irreversible process, I'm not sure we may
add such factors directory into the mapping as explanatory variables.
I think the above fits to what Marx wrote about skilled labor.
To add, this *social process* (contains cultural, historical, .... factors) is
not equivalent to the function of circulation (market). In contrast, The function
of market is partly affected by such social factors.
Market will prove that products have certain quantity of value which is already
given in production if they are actually purchased. I don't see any contradiction
with my argument above and the passage of Marx Michael L. quoted.
in solidarity,
Iwao
#Paul Z, can you read this without a crash?