Kenneth Campbell writes: >> I don't think I misunderstand your question. I was talking about the >> "value" of the crew. >> >> But please inform me of my errors, I am open to instruction, at any age. >> >> The labor/value thing is larger than micro economy, no? When you squish >> it into some smaller question, it is easier to make fun of the larger >> philosophical point? No? Like you are trying to do with Jim? At that >> point, that is where I was making comment about the law.
I am not trying to make fun. I am trying to understand. For better or worse, I am a reductionist, as some of you may remember from a previous exchange. Therefore, I insist on narrowing issues to their most basic. As I understand the Marxist view at its most reductionist, if Simon and Garfunkel hire a electricial and pay him "X", the actual value created by the electrician is more than "X." What I am trying to understand is what was the value created by the electrician? If he does the work, but the show is cancelled and there is no revenue, was value created? If the same revenue is generated regardless of whether the electrician does the work, what is his contribution to the value? Now, if you want to say that the labor theory of value is useless analytically at the micro level, go ahead, but my impression is that would not be Marxian orthodoxy. David Shemano
