Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte

[Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

What analysis of the logic of exchange shows is that there must
be a conserved scalar quantity in exchange. It does not prove
that equal amounts of labour must be exchanged. One can not prove
this by logical argument, it needs empirical evidence.

What it does *suggest* is that a dynamical system with a conserved
quantity like this may have an attractor that is 'captured' by the
strongest signal going into the system which is labour, a phenomenon
that is perhaps like an induced resonance. It does not indicate
that there will be an exact correspondence, only that there will
be a strong correlation between the induced resonance and the driving
signal. 

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ajit sinha
Sent: 25 April 2007 11:53
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ajit sinha wrote:
>
> >Thanks Mike!
> >
> >I think the fundamental problem with such reasoning
> is
> >the positing of exchange relation as =. There is no
> >compelling reason for understanding an exchange
> >relation as a relation of equality. What one can
> say
> >is that the VALUES of the two commodities exchanged
> >are equal. But this is a tautology and already
> >presupposes VALUES.
> >
> >Secondly, the move from exchange of equivalents to
> >exchange of equivalent ABSTRACT labor is always the
> >weakest link and relies only on assertions. The
> usual
> >rhetorical trick employed at this stage is "Marx
> shows
> >that..." or "Marx proves that ..." or "Marx argues
> >that ...". The reason is clear. The author, whoever
> >the author happens to be, finds it very difficult
> to
> >argue the case on the merit of it, so the
> invocation
> >of Marx is introduced to bridge this gap in
> reasoning.
> >Cheers, ajit sinha
> >--- Michael Schauerte <yk3mk3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> The alternative is to show that the metric space of
> commodities
> shares the features of a system governed by a scalar
> conservation law.
> This does not prove that the scalar being conserved
> is labour value, it only
> shows that hypothesising something called value is
> equivalent to
> hypothesising
> something called energy or charge in the case of
> other systems governed
> by conservation laws.
> Establishing that it is labour that is the scalar
> being conserved is an
> empirical question.
_________________________
Let's accept the assumptions and suppose that what is
conserved is labor. Will it then necessarily prove
that exchange of commodities must imply exchange of
equal amount of labor? Cheers, ajit sinha


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com