| This question <24|37> overall <26|28> Hans: <22|28>. |
| Question 49: Is the magnitude of value of a commodity determined by the quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce it, or by the quantity of other commodities against which it can be exchanged? |
| [27] Hans: If you do Question 49, read what has been said about it already! Submission [24] is the third submission referring to Question 49, after Submissions [14], [21], and my own response [22]. And it adds nothing, on the contrary, it falls behind what the others said. Here is submission [24] interspersed with my comments: |
| The word value is existing in the word use-value. If we do not consider the use-value of commodities, then as a result, only a fact that the commodities are the products of labor is left. |
| This is ok, but a. you do not explain what this has to do with the Question asked, and b. you also do not explain what the two sentences have to do with each other. Neither of a. or b. are obvious. |
| Marx says that a commodity is the product of abstract labor. |
| No, no, no: Marx stresses that it is the concrete labor which produces the use values. |
| Therefore, I say that value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce it. It doesn't mean that a commodity which was produced by unskilled and lazy workers has more value in it because it takes more time for them to produce it. Abstract labor, Marx defines, is socially necessary labor required to produce a commodity under the normal production conditions with the average degree of skill and intensity of prevailing labour in that society. |
| This is by far not the full definition of abstract labor. This is how its quantiative side is determined. The most important part of the definition of abstract labor is still missing. |
| Therefore, commodities such as TV and VCR, which contain equal quantity of labor, have the same value. The value of a commodity will remain constant if the required labor-time to produce the commodity also will stay constat. If, for example, the required labor time for a production of a commodity has became shorter , then the value of the commodity also has became less valued. |
| Yes, this is right. |
| But a good answer to Question 49 should not only say which of the two alternatives is right, but also what the relationship is between the two alternatives. After all, both have a certain plausibility. There is also a grain of truth in the alternative one has to reject. I tried to explain this relationship in response [22]. If you want to do Question 49, look at response [22] and see what you can add from there. Even someone re-explaining what I tried to say in [22] would be ok. But don't start from zero after all this discussion already has gone on. Build on the work of others. This is also a method to keep the workload down for those who have to keep up with the discussion. |
|
|
|||||