Paul Cockshott wrote: > Well that is the problem you arrive at when you apply the categories of a > single mode of production to a social formation with a combination of modes > of production. It is clear that the teachers produce no exchange value, so > their labour does not assume the capitalist value form. But their labour is > still socially necessary.
> The problem I think comes from approaching it from the standpoint of the > profit making capitalist. To him it appears that labour 'produces' value. But > this is a superficial view, since for the capitalist value is only apparent > as exchange value. > If we follow your basic argument earlier, which I accept, that value is > measured in hours of socially necessary labour time, then there is no doubt > that the labour of teachers constitutes part of the socially necessary labour > time and thus in social accounting terms is value, even if it is not manifest > in the characteristic capitalist form of the exchange value of an output > commodity.< Marx's perspective in CAPITAL volume I was from the perspective of profit-making (or rather, -seeking) capitalists organizing production of commodities. It's only in that context that "socially necessary" is defined. Paul, you seem to be mixing Marx's value theory with Paul Baran's view of production, in which different kinds of labor are socially necessary according to the standards of a rational society. -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
