Re: [OPE-L] Question

[ajit sinha <sinha_a99@xxxxxxxxx>]

Allin, the point is that the idea that the division of
labor in several beranches of a total given labor of
society in relation to the 'needs' or 'demands' of the
society lies behind the quantitative dimension of
labor-values is one of the major themes of the
'dialectical' interpretation of labor-values--I think
Jerry and others who are somehow saying that market
demand and supply determines the equilibrium of how
much of total labor of a society should be allocated
to a branch ultimately also determines the
quantitative labor-values of commodities are coming
from the same source. My point is that this would be
true only if there was no constant capital in the
system. The presence of constant capital introduces
contradiction in this proposition. It is, of course,
true that division of labor is essential for commodity
exchange and thus anykind of value relations. But the
quantitative labor-values do not depend on the
quantitative division of total labor into various
branches; it is rather determined by technique of
production used to produce the commodities. Cheers,
ajit sinha
--- Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, ajit sinha wrote:
>
> > --- Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > That, I believe, is a mistake: it is warping the
> definition of
> > > value to match market price (hence my
> "dissolving" comment).
> > ________________________
> > Its not only a mistake, it simply cannot be done.
> > Anybody who comes down from verbal statements and
> > tries to work out the meaning of the proposition
> > through mathematical example will quickly learn
> that.
>
> Ajit, I don't see that your demonstration has much
> bearing on the
> point I was making in criticism of Jerry.
>
> You quote Marx's famous letter to Kugelmann and ask:
>
> > Does this mean that in a commodity-producing
> economy the
> > exchange ratios between commodities are determined
> by taking the
> > ratios of total labor employed in various sectors?
>
> Well, duh, of course not!  It's pretty obvious that
> Marx thought
> no such thing.  The letter is celebrated, I think,
> only as stating
> the rationale for the labour theory of value in
> general terms (and
> in that respect doing a better job than the
> mumbo-jumbo in Chapter
> 1 of Capital about triangles!).
>
> But it's kinda vague.  You're reading too much into
> it, if you
> reckon it yields the proposition that sectoral
> prices should be in
> proportion to the labour directly employed in the
> sectors (without
> regard to the indirect labour).
>
> Allin.
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html