[OPE-L:6326] Historical, real and current costs

aramos@aramos.bo
Sat, 21 Mar 1998 10:58:27

In my late post, re Jerry''s PIAF:

> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 06:10:09 -0500 (est)
> From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L] Re: Re: Historical, real and current costs

I have quoted the following piece by Jerry:

> Moreover, the Marx quotation does not speak to the issue at hand. I.e. he
> does not suggest that *value* was increased without the expenditure of
> living and/or dead labour.

Then, I had written:

> Jerry: I can't believe this sentence. Andrew doesn't hold that
> value was increased without the expenditure of living and or dead
> labor. He has already clarified the matter. PLEASE, see his recent
> post commenting Francisco's questions. Why do you say that in his
> example there is creation of value without expenditure of labor? He
> has stressed that the labor-value is 100 hours. Please, tell me
> where does Andrew say that labor-value is > 100 hours?

I think it is useful to quote Andrew''s post I referred to:

(snip)

> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 98 05:16:50 UT
> From: "andrew kliman" <Andrew_Kliman@CLASSIC.MSN.COM>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: RE: [OPE-L] Re: Historical, real and current costs

> [Francisco] Paolo [Cipolla] wrote: "I dont see why this product,
> under the conditions described by you,(that is one single branch
> of production) should have a value -- at 9 p.m.-- superior to the
> flow of labor?"

> Andrew: Nor do I. Let me stress, once again, that I am saying that
> the value of the 100 chunches, at 9 p.m. is exactly 100 labor-
> hours, which is exactly the amount of labor-time that the workers
> performed.

So, it seems completely clear to me that Andrew is maintaining that
the value of the widget is 100 labor-hours at 9 p.m. and,
consequently, I don''t understand why Jerry is still saying that
Andrew''s example "suggest that *value* was increased without the
expenditure of living and/or dead labour." If value "was increased",
then Andrew would say that it is > than 100 labour-hours at 9 p.m.

So, I don''t see why in Andrew''s example "the Sun" would create
value, as Jerry says. Andrew is only allowing for the difference
between working time and production time and a change in the MELT
during this time.

The only explanaition I can find is that Jerry has missed Andrew''s
post, which is not strange in this "galaxy" epoch. I''m not sure
whether I got every ope-l post.

Alejandro Ramos