on 2/3/02 08:21 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The discussion about the labor theory of value misses one important > point, which I have been trying to push for years. Suppose you want to > calculate the value of a commodity according to the simple algebraic > formula > > C+V+S > > Held the calculate C? Marx describes a simple method: the suppose you > have a machine that last 10 years, take the C and apply 1/10 of it to > the value of the final product for each year. If, however -- and Marx > pushes this quite a bit -- new technology destroys the value of the > remaining C before the 10 years is up, how the calculate the amount of > value embodied in the constant capital consumed? > > Of course, such calculations are impossible. Marx's value theory is > very important for showing, as Jim emphasized, how the capitalist system > works, but the simple algebraic description neglects the dynamic nature > of capitalism. Marx's goes much farther in his description of the > dynamic nature of capitalism, but nobody seems to have incorporated that > part of his work into value theory, as such. In effect, those who talk > about the dynamic nature of capitalism seem to ignore value theory and > those who emphasize value theory seem to ignore dynamics -- the partial > exception of Alan Freeman, Andrew Kleiman, .... and myself. None of us > has done a satisfactory job. > -- > > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chico, CA 95929 > 530-898-5321 > fax 530-898-5901
>Sir Michael Perelman MIYACHI TATSUO PSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre. JAPAN your account is easy possible to reply, you suppose C as element of commodity value, and if new technology " destroy" o f the remaining "C",value is not possible to calculate. But remaining C is caluculative. If value of "C" is originally 100,and new technology make value of "C" to 50 after 5years, and complete consuming time is 10yeqrs, we calcalatte commodity value as including 5 "C" instead 10. Below is from Capital" "A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour-time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour's social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value." In this It is pivotal point how we calculate " homogenous, social labor" In many orthodox Marxists and non-marxist economists misunderstand this "homogenous, social labor" as some physical substance countable by physical measure, but it is incorrect, For Marx, money-form of value is firstly appeared as ideal or imaginary. Below is Marx's explanation of it, which most marxist stumble, "The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form. Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn has actual existence in these very articles: it is ideally made perceptible by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists only in their own heads. Their owner must, therefore, lend them his tongue, or hang a ticket on them, before their prices can be communicated to the outside world. [2] Since the expression of the value of commodities in gold is a merely ideal act, we may use for this purpose imaginary or ideal money. Every trader knows, that he is far from having turned his goods into money, when he has expressed their value in a price or in imaginary money, and that it does not require the least bit of real gold, to estimate in that metal millions of pounds' worth of goods. When, therefore, money serves as a measure of value; it is employed only as imaginary or ideal money. This circumstance has given rise to the wildest theories. [3] But, although the money that performs the functions of a measure of value is only ideal money, price depends entirely upon the actual substance that is money. The value, or in other words, the quantity of human labour contained in a ton of iron, is expressed in imagination by such a quantity of the money-commodity as contains the same amount of labour as the iron. According, therefore, as the measure of value is gold, silver, or copper, the value of the ton of iron will be expressed by very different prices, or will be represented by very different quantities of those metals respectively."
