IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
In an off-list post Riccardo asked the explain briefly that what Jerry refered to as the `elimination' procedure in Value-Form and the State, grounding the thesis that labour is the source of value. In the face of the interchange between Riccardo en Michael [2251], i.e.: Riccardo: >>> I would appreciate the shortest answer you may give for 'why *labour* in >>> the abstract labour theory of value?'. Michael: >>Because 'labour' is Marx's answer to the question How does M => (M + dM) >>occur? And I agree with that. Riccardo: >This is very short, thank you. >Have you a little (not too much) longer answer which does not appeal to >authority. I thought that you, as me, are not interested as such in the >word of the master. Here is the `elimination' in short. Certainly, all things can be summarized upto any requested amount (up to finally two or perhaps three words -- guess). Here goes the elimination process in a few sentences, i.e. the question of why labour is the source of value. 1) Capitalist production is a two-fould process: production of use-value and production of value (both at one). 2) Use-value. Permit integration af all production; i.e. macro. WITHIN this intergrated whole we have 3 factors of production: a) unappropriated nature; b) means of production (including appropriated nature, such as land); c) labour [3 factors, cf. Neoclassical economics]. However, looking at this whole as a CIRCUIT we have only two facors coming from outside as inputs: a) unappropriated nature; b) labour(power) [two factors, cf Petty, Marx, Austrian economics]. 3) Value. Now look at the same CIRCUIT as value-production, valorisation. We had before two factors coming from outside. However, unappropriated Nature cannot (till today) take the value-form (e.g. sun, air, rain). And surely that poses an ecological danger for the capitalist system (of course for people in the first place -- but without people no capitalism). Ergo (and this is what Jerry calls: by elimination), labour-power is the only factor entering the valorisation circuit from outside: that adds from outside. (The use-value of labour-power is labour. Labour is a two-fould entity: physical/concrete labour -- with time dimension if you like -- see (2); abstract labour -- with money dimension (which is `ideal' money, that can be looked upon as a precommensuration, during production. Thus we have one factor of production of value [cf. Marx]. Of course since the notion (1) above is Marx's, we have Marx appearing in (2) AND (3). I hope this will do. As always this can be extended again to many more words. (At the beginning I was joking with a serious undertone about the two or three word abstract: Being x Nothing (-- Becoming), that is what its is about.) Comradely, Geert
- [OPE-L:2259] Re: Re: : value-form theories, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2259] Re: Re: : value-form theories, riccardo bellofiore Fri 21 Jan 2000, 11:14 GMT
- [OPE-L:2261] Re: value-form theories, Gerald Levy Fri 21 Jan 2000, 12:43 GMT
- [OPE-L:2265] Re: Re: value-form theories, riccardo bellofiore Fri 21 Jan 2000, 13:54 GMT
- [OPE-L:2263] Re: Re: Re: : value-form theories, Michael J Williams Fri 21 Jan 2000, 13:21 GMT
- [OPE-L:2270] Re: value-form theories, Geert REUTEN Fri 21 Jan 2000, 18:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:2272] Re: Re: value-form theories, C. J. Arthur Sat 22 Jan 2000, 01:32 GMT
- [OPE-L:2273] nature, value and wealth, Gerald Levy Sat 22 Jan 2000, 13:35 GMT
- [OPE-L:2279] nature, value and wealth, C. J. Arthur Sun 23 Jan 2000, 18:15 GMT