Re: Re: Re: LOV and LTV

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christian,
Can't follow what you're getting at. Please restate.


> 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.

Well that's not what I mean since I still don't understand what you are saying.



>  If I were being polemical, I might ask how you know that money
> always distorts value if you have no other measure of it.

What's the problem?



> It seems to me that you accept that

what is the reference to 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