John wrote in [OPE-L:5219]:
> For Marxists, the task would be to show why and how a given amount of
> labour creates the same value regardless of technical change. If we have
> to assert that this is the case to show something else, we miss the
> mark.
Then, Mike W wrote in [OPE-L:5224]:
> It is quite clear from a quote from early in V1 that I cited some time ago,
> that for Marx 'social necessity' was also determined by the fact that that
> labour that produces that proportion of output that turns out to be in
> excess supply is 'wasted' just as surely as that extra labour needed on a
> sub-average technique of production.
Here we see a sharp difference of interpretation which, IMHO, lies at the
heart of the controversy over "ideal vs. real value". When John says that
"the task" for Marxists is to "show why and how a given amount of labor
creates the same value", he has already abstracted from whether the labour
expended has been socially-necessary or not in terms of the determination
of value.
I think we should talk about the significance of
"socially-necessary-labour-time" some more.
In solidarity, Jerry