Added note: The distinction -- which I believe Hilferding, Bukharin, et alia introduced among Marxists -- between an "objective" theory of value and the "subjective" one attributed to the doctrine later known as "neoclassical," only makes any sense if "objective" is meant in the sense that value is *socially* objective. Some people think that labor is objective while utility is subjective. Individual labor is a purely subjective experience. But then, it is an element of collective or cooperative labor, and therefore objective, socially validated, socially objective. The usefulness of goods, at the level of individuals is subjective. But then individual needs are socialized, and social necessity is socially objective. Go to a soup kitchen in the Bronx (or to the Apple store a few hours before the next iPhone is released) and tell me it's not so.
Labor is the activity of the subject, i.e. subjective. Some people quip: We can measure the amount of work by measuring output or the time length of activity. That's objective! Sure, but you can also measure how "intensely" people want to eat oranges by counting the oranges they effectively eat or for how long they eat them. That is also objective! Labor is supposed to be guided by design, forethought, knowledge, purpose. How do you measure knowledge or skill? And how do you measure purposefulness? Well, people have developed all sorts of metrics. Each will give you a partial view of things. All of them collectively will give you a richer, more concrete view, plus or minus an error. You can attach electrodes to people skulls and see how their synapses fire up when they carry out some task, just as you can when they eat an orange. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
