>
>I don't think that your example is quite correct although I understand your
>point. A hand-assembled Toyota would most likely be regarded as "superior",
>command a higher price and represent a greater value than the Toyota that
>was mass produced using a great deal of automation.
My example assumes that the finished products are identical, or near enough.
There are real world examples all the time, such as with the machine looms
that laid waste to the handlooms of India and England. The hand looms took
longer to make the same cloth, but the value of the product dropped
preciptously, because the extra time was no longer socially necessary.
> But assuming they did have the same value then you are correct the
>value
>or abstract socially necessary labor in both would be the same. However, I
>dont see how this counters my point. Let us say that Sam who hand builds
>Toyota's has to work twice as long as Sally who is in the automated factory
>to embody the same value i.e.abstract socially necessary labor time.
>Doesn't
>it follow that Sam's labor power is not equal in value to that of Sally?
This is not a well-formed question. The value of labor power is the wage
necesasry to reproduce the worker, not the amount of time he must work to
produce the product. You confuse here the value of the product with the
value of the producer's labor time. The value of the product is a certain
amount (the socially necessary part) of the labor time necessary to produce
the commodity.
>That is my point and it does seem to follow from the theory as far as I can
>see. A capitalist is not going to buy any Sam labor power when Sally labor
>power produces value at twice the rate of Sam.
Quite right. Ask the hand loom weavers. So what's your point?
jks
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
