I am not the author of the quote you refer to. Michael Williams is the
author, so your critique is of him. I said at the time I "broadly agreed"
with it, to the extent that I think the embodied labour theory is wrong and
many services are not "embodied" (I confess I do not fully understand
Williams position for the rest of it).
At 11:47 AM 9/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
>> >I do not see that the inclusion of services under Commodity undermines
>> >anything but the long-discredited *embodied* labour theory of value.
>> >are in the realm of abstract labour accounting, the 'value theory of
>> >and a value-form view that value and money are two aspects of a single
>> >system, we are indeed better able to apply Marx's fundamental critique to
>> >late second millenium capitalism.
>This is sheer nonsense! People who talk about "value theory of labor" etc.
>very little understanding of the value problematic. As far as "embodied labor
>theory of value" is concerned, it only means direct and indirect labor
>reproduce the commodity at the time of its valuation. And i don't see by what
>logic you argue that inclusion of services in productive labor category
>the embodied labor theory of value? Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:08 EST