Re: is value labour?

From: Asfilho@AOL.COM
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 06:16:15 EDT

Paul C says:

> >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.

Perhaps I am over-simplifying, and colleagues more familiar with Ricardo's
work will correct me, but I think that the two statements ultimately boil
down to the same thing - concern with *quantity of labour necessary in
production* rather than the *mode of social organisation of production that
makes this labour take the form of value (and price)*.

>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.

I think I understand now - many thanks. The difference, I believe, is that I
would emphasise more the social and historical structures of production, and
would pay relatively little attention to the measurement of labour-time in
order to understand the price system. This is not at all to say that the
latter is of little relevance; but we have to select a point of departure,
and of course it will leave an imprint in the character of the analysis and
its conclusions.


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