Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[<christian11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rakesh,

>Let me try this definition (open to revision of course):

>Value is the socially necessary abstract labor time which potentially objectified in a commodity has as its only and necessary form of appearance units of money.

This is what I meant yesterday by "debt and wages" as the terms of capital depreciation. If I were being polemical, I might ask how you know that money always distorts value if you have no other measure of it. It seems to me that you accept that as a first principle, based on the existential description of class antagonism. But I wonder if this distortion always takes the same shape: is the value produced by the LA Lakers distorted in the same way as that by the workers who prep and clean the Staples center? I don't think so, although you could argue that what's being distorted is the snalt, not subjective labor time. Wage differences (like wages themselves), you might say, express this distortion. But then you're left explaining how Shaq's and Kobe's wages, as representations of surplus value/snalt are only in _appearance_ (since that's what wages are) different from those of the staff at Staples--in principle, they really aren't different; there's still extraction of surpl!
us!
 value;, it just looks like they have better lives because their are multimillionaires. Then what?

Christian