> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 18:56:37 -0300 (EST)
> From: "Francisco P. Cipolla" <cipolla@tamandua.sociais.ufpr.br>
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: RE: [OPE-L] Re: Historical, real and current costs
Francisco writes:
> But Andrew, a wet widget or chunche is not a use value. It will be a use
> value only at 9p.m. when it is dry and ready for sale. 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?
I have also the same problem with Andrew''s example. However, I think
it is connected with an example given in an "old" discussion between
Andrew and Duncan (surfing tables being transported from New York to
Los Angeles and sold in Chicago, before arriving to their final
destination???)
In any case, the wet chunche has not use-value as a means of
subsistence (final product) but it''s a means of production (raw
material). Another capitalist can buy it before it is completely dry
(a speculative purchasing?) Cuban rhum must be aged 15 years, but it
could be bought before, let''s say at year 7, for less value than
that it will pressumably have at year 15.
Maybe we can check Marx''s examples in Capital II, Ch. 13, "The time
of production" where, as Andrew said, he distinguishes between working
time and production time.
Alejandro Ramos
If not, then there is no change in the MELT from 5 p.m.
> when wages are paid to 9p.m. when the product is finished.
> In any case the issue seems to be that if MELT varies within the period it
> is supposed to measure the value of labor time then it cannot function as
> a measure. Is that the point?
> Thank you Andrew for your careful and helpful response to my post.
>
> Paulo
>
> >