>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 25 00:38 EDT 1995 AAA05262 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:38:47 -0400 From: "John R. Ernst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 00:38:46 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: practice On Mon, 24 Jul 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >JOHN NOW SAYS: >WHAT? CONCRETE LABOR DOES HAVE A TIME DIMENSION. LABOR DOES >NOT BECOME ABSTRACT BY NOTING HOW LONG HOW LONG IT LASTS. >ABSTRACT LABOR IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY ONLY BECOMES ABSTRACT VIA >THE MARKET. ARE ALL CONCRETE LABOR HOURS ABLE TO BE COMPARED >WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PRICES [JUST BECAUSE, JRE] THE TASKS PREFORMED TAKE TIME? I THINK NOT. >_______________________________ >How does this happen, i.e. "via the market" John? What kind of market is this? > >Cheers, ajit sinha Let me keep it simple. The only way any quantity of labor can become abstract (social) is via exchange. Given that so much linen exchanges for so much gold, the labor that produced the linen becomes abstract(social) labor in that process. Without exhange, the concrete labor that produced the linen is simply concrete labor and does not have the dual nature of labor that Marx "discovered." Thus, abstract labor can only be seen by looking at the the prices. Please note this, for me, is simply a matter of defining terms and not in any way a proof of value theory, a validation of Marx, or an explanation of markets and how they work. I'm simply willing to give Marx ample space to define the terms he uses in CAPITAL. I said this to Paul because I could not accept that in testing parts of Marx's theory the sum of concete labor times is a equivalent to or a proxy for abstract labor. Stay warm (We are) John -- John R. Ernst
