Re Rakesh's [5292]: > To measure socially necessary labor time we > would have to measure or > would be implicitly measuring socially wasted labor time--that is the > labor put into an object that is of no social utility. > How would we know the clock time embodied in the taurus has not been > socially wasted even if manufactured at best practice unless and > until the taurus has been ex-changed into money and thereby proves > itself to be (or to have been) an aliquot of socially necessary labor > time? > It seems to me not true that abstract labor time or socially > necessary labor time have meaning outside of monetary expression I understand you to be saying that for value to be fully constituted as value the commodity must be sold for money. I agree with you. Thus, what was *presumed* to constitue value (and SNLT) prior to sale can be shown to not constitute value or SNLT if the commodity's value is not actualized in the marketplace with its exchange for money. This is because of a necessary linkage of u-v, value, and e-v for the constitution of the commodity. While this is an important issue (one we discussed at length in the "ideal vs. real value" thread), it is not the same issue I have addressed here. You might remember that I pointed out in the original post that raised this issue [5276] that I was raising "JUST *ONE PROBLEM*" (emphasis added) re the measurement of SNLT. Thus the meaning of "socially necessary" has a number of meanings (indeed, some of these other meanings I have discussed recently), but I explicitly wanted to discuss *this* issue now. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT