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