[OPE-L:1151] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unproductive labour income and Marxian social accounts

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Wed Sep 08 1999 - 06:22:46 EDT

Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

> Dear Ajit,
> 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).


Sorry Jurriaan! I was browsing through several e-mail messages and the sentence,
"long discredited *embodied* labour theory of value", attracted my attention.
There is no other "labor theory of value" worth talking about, by the way. All
other variants of "labor theory of value" are basically childish. I think Marxist
economic theory will not make much progress until we are clear about a couple of
questions: why Marxist theory needs a theory of value, and what question a theory
of value is supposed to answer. Mumbo jumbos like instead of labor theory of value
Marx had value theory of labor etc. are not going to do any good to Marxist
theory. Cheers, ajit sinha

> Cheers
> Jurriaan
> 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.
> Once we
> >> >are in the realm of abstract labour accounting, the 'value theory of
> labour'
> >> >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.
> have
> >very little understanding of the value problematic. As far as "embodied labor
> >theory of value" is concerned, it only means direct and indirect labor
> time to
> >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
> undermines
> >the embodied labor theory of value? Cheers, ajit sinha
> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:08 EST