> >Question to Roemer readers: > > >If we assume that the LTV and/or the LOV is, at best, "redundant", does >the concept of total social labor exist in a quantative form? In other >words, without Marx's notion of value, how can one add up labor time? >Or, do we just add up concrete labor hours and say that's that. Or do >we just dismiss the notion as 19th Century nonsense? > >
Not at all. I think that Marx's notion of SNALT is a useful one, but it's not necesasrily a notion of value, or anyway doesn't exhause the notion. Btw it is important to distinguisg between the theses that SNALT is the measure of value and that labor is the source of all value. The first is true in a limited way; as Roemer among other argues, anything can be the numaire, labor, corn, iron. The question, from thsi point of view, is whether it is useful or illuminating to use labor as the numaire, and that is where the redundancy theory kicks in. The other matter, whether labor is the sole source of value, is a different quesion: labor might be the source and not the measure (and vice versa). Here I think that labor is _a_ source of value, anda major one. But not the only one. Ina nay case, Marx simply uses the first version, and trues tos hwo that using the laboras the measure you get interesting results. As to thesecond, hewassumes taht it is true as a matter of definition, with only a passing swipe at subjectivist theories, which were underdeveloped in those days. jks _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
