On Wed, 15 Mar 1995, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> The labour that counts as value is abstract social labour not concrete >
labour. > Concrete skills change, but abstract social labour counts as a
fraction > of the > social working day - in whatever technical conditions
it takes place. > Ownership > of a sum of value is command over a portion
of society's working time, > command over the labour of others. It is a
measure of social power, > validated > by the number of people it
commands, whatever they are set to doing. > 'Labour alone, therefore,
never varying in its own value, is alone the > ultimate and real standard
by which the value of all commodities can > at all times an places be
estimated and compared. Its is their real > price; > money is their
nominal price only.'
>
Paul,
I understand that you did empirical studies on the labor content of various
goods and their prices. How did you treat in these studies different kinds of
labor? 1h = 1h? "Abstract social labor" is a theoretical concept, isn't it?
So how did you try to capture it empirically? Marx speaks of the necessity
to reduce complicated ("multiplied") labor to simple labor. Did you try this?
How? Or do you think he was wrong?
Andreas Goesele
Mannheimer Str. 12
D-80803 Muenchen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
