| This question <58|58> overall <45|47> James: <24|285-8>. graded B+ |
| Question 67: Why is labor measured here by labor-time, and not by counting how many movements were made, or by the drops of sweat of the laborer, or by the discomfort of the laborer? |
| [46] James: I believe that time is used to define the value of a good for two reasons. One, time is the only thing listed (time, movements, drops of sweat, discomfort) that is constant. It is nearly impossible to provide a system of measurement to any of these except for time. It is such a case as to provide society with a valid judgement on the value of a good time must be used. Second, time is limited. You can always increase or limit the amount of movements, sweat, or discomfort, but you have an unchanging limited amount of time. Time is the greatest thing that one can give. If there was ever something to judge the value of an item, time would be it. |
| Hans: I didn't get what you meant with the sentence “It is such a case as to provide ...”, but the other points you are making are good. When you say “time is constant” I assume you mean that it is a uniform measure witch which you can measure different kinds of labor. This is very similar to what Marx means when he says that we need a measure not of the concrete but the abstract labor. See what I wrote about this in [2002fa:25]. |
| The only thing I didn't like about your answer is that you make it sound as if Marx was proposing a system how labor should be measured. This is not his goal. He is trying to find out how the market mechanism is already implicitly measuring labor by the market prices which the goods receive. As I said in message [45], Capital is not a blueprint for a just society. |
|
|
|||||