GA Cohen, LTV and explotiation
(338, thesis): don't need LTV ("mutual irrelevance"
(340) the substantive thesis of volume 1 is that (3) socially necessary labour time determines 'equilibrium price' (whether or not the definitional claim is (1) socially necessary labour time is value; or (2) value is equilibrium price)
(340) LTV does not give you LT of surplus-value
(341) nice, pithy statement of the 'origin of non-wage income'--""the difference between the value of labor power and the value produced by him/her in whom it inheres. it is the difference between the amount of time it takes to produce what is needed to keep a producer in being for a certain period and the amount of time he spends producing during that period"
(343) Traditional Marxist Argument leaves its moral premises unstates: (1) that one is entitled to the fruits of one's labour; (b) that one is 'forced' to enter into this relation
(344) You can drop the LT of SV from the account, because all you need is for the capitalist to accumulated some of the value produced by the worker for the TMA to be coherent
(346) strict vs. popular doctrine of LTV (hinging on whether labour is source of all value--can't be, if 'past labour' is involved)
(349) the objective here is to puncutre the 'pop idea of creating value', to show that, even according to LTV, labour does not create value
(352) Marx vs. Ricardo is a 'popular' distinction,
(354) exploitation is not about appropriation of value, but about the appropriation of the product
(354-355) Recall only labour is a producer (which is different from saying that labour is responsible for the production of all value) (take lending you a knife, as an example--productive activity vs. producing activity)
(356) Simpler Marxist Argument drops claims about (a) all value being created by labour; (b) value being what's appropriated
(338, thesis): don't need LTV ("mutual irrelevance"
(340) the substantive thesis of volume 1 is that (3) socially necessary labour time determines 'equilibrium price' (whether or not the definitional claim is (1) socially necessary labour time is value; or (2) value is equilibrium price)
(340) LTV does not give you LT of surplus-value
(341) nice, pithy statement of the 'origin of non-wage income'--""the difference between the value of labor power and the value produced by him/her in whom it inheres. it is the difference between the amount of time it takes to produce what is needed to keep a producer in being for a certain period and the amount of time he spends producing during that period"
(343) Traditional Marxist Argument leaves its moral premises unstates: (1) that one is entitled to the fruits of one's labour; (b) that one is 'forced' to enter into this relation
(344) You can drop the LT of SV from the account, because all you need is for the capitalist to accumulated some of the value produced by the worker for the TMA to be coherent
(346) strict vs. popular doctrine of LTV (hinging on whether labour is source of all value--can't be, if 'past labour' is involved)
(349) the objective here is to puncutre the 'pop idea of creating value', to show that, even according to LTV, labour does not create value
(352) Marx vs. Ricardo is a 'popular' distinction,
(354) exploitation is not about appropriation of value, but about the appropriation of the product
(354-355) Recall only labour is a producer (which is different from saying that labour is responsible for the production of all value) (take lending you a knife, as an example--productive activity vs. producing activity)
(356) Simpler Marxist Argument drops claims about (a) all value being created by labour; (b) value being what's appropriated
No comments:
Post a Comment