Re: is value labour?

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 05:12:43 EDT

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*.

I dont think the statement ' value is labour' is Ricardian. The Ricardian
proposition is that exchange value is determined by labour, with no
distinction being made between value and exchange value.

I am saying that value is (socially necessary) labour, and that
it is indirectly represented in commodity producing societies in the exchange
rates between commodities.

Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow

0141 330 3125

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT