Re: is value labour?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 17:26:27 EDT


Are you arguing that Marx's 'value' is therefore different than Ricardo's
'value' and, if so [if not different, I wouldn't understand your point],
how different?  It is one thing to mention that Ricardo speaks from a
trans-historical position but not Marx, it is another to demonstrate how
'value' is thus affected.


--On Wednesday, May 07, 2003 9:45 AM -0400 Asfilho@AOL.COM wrote:

> The trouble with such Ricardian views as "value is labour" is that they
> take for granted the existence of exchange, prices and commodities. That
> commodities are worth more because they embody more labour begs the
> questions of *why there are commodities at all*, and *why it is a
> relevant abstraction to assume, at certain stages in the analysis, that
> commodities exchange at their labour time of production*.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT