====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 13:32 +0000, Leonardo Kosloff wrote: > P. Dunn wrote: "And money does not equalise abstract labor?" > > If by equalise you mean that money functions as a representative of > the commensurability of the abstract human labor already materialized > before two commodities are exchanged, then yes, money equalises > (expresses the equality of), quantitavely, the abstract labor in those > commodities. But this is not against what Hans says (so it doesn't > look like it's what you're saying), which, as I take it, means that > commodities are not commodities because they are equalized by money, > money is the outward mode of expression of their commensurability > which results from the action that objectifies the value-form of the > commodity, which is the labor performed privately and independently. > Commodities are commodities before they are exchanged (before their > intrinsic potentiality is realized.) > > By the same token, money does not equalize abstract labor in the sense > that labor becomes abstract because of the act of exchange. Abstract > labor is an aspect of the two-fold character of general social labor > and doesn't come into existence by the action of money, the action is > that of the producer of commodities. See more below. > If the quanta of "abstract human labor already materialized before two commodities are exchanged" are unequal, how can money equalised them? > > P. Dunn wrote: "It seems that "invisible values" can be calculated but > not measured in any operational sense since the value of the sum of > money for which the commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic > value." > > If values can be "calculated but not measured" (whatever that means,) > then how do you know that "the value of the sum of money for which the > commodity is sold is not equal to its intrinsic value." By the way, > values are "invisible" because they have no materiality, same could be > said of prices. > With one theory you could calculate in advance of sale that the abstract labour contained in a commodity was 4.2 hours, say, but be unable to measure it. With a different theory you could not calculate the abstract labour contained in the commodity in advance but could measure it as 7.6 hours, say, or even 4.2 hours (not wishing to be prejudicial). > P. Dunn wrote: "You cannot even tell if there is any value hidden away > in there since things can have a price without having a value." > > Really...how is that, how can things have a price without having a > value? > Good question, but it should be directed at the fellow who wrote: "Things which in and by themselves are not commodities, such as conscience, honor, etc., can be put up for sale by their owners, and can thus, through their price, acquire the commodity form. Hence a thing can have a price without having value. In that case, the price expression is imaginary, like certain magnitudes used in mathematical calculations. On the other hand, the imaginary price form may sometimes conceal a direct or indirect value relation; for instance, uncultivated land may have a price, though it has no value, since no human labor has been incorporated in it." ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
