Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Feb 21 2007 - 09:18:59 EST

I am not "proposing" to put a price on nature.  I am saying that
aspects of nature _are_ valued irrespective of what Smith, Marx,
or I say about it.  This _reality_ was something that Marx was
acutely aware of:  in his explanation of the distinction between value
and wealth, in his recognition that objects can have an exchange-value
and market price but not constitute value; in his writings on
original accumulation, etc.

> Attempts to apply valuations to nature are a projection of capitalist
> social relations onto a domain on which they do not apply.

Point is it happens. Because it happens it raises issues concerning the
sum of prices in relation to the sum of values and the sum of value in
relation to the sum of wealth. 
Paul C
One has to be very careful with notions like the sum of wealth, since
this includes the imputed price of lots of things which may not
to values: imputed value of financial assets, of land ( from capitalised
rents ) etc.

The issue of being able to set total price equal to total value is at
one level
a trivial issue since they are equal up to a scalar coefficient, which
be said of any two quantities. It only becomes constraining if one wants
introduce a second equation total interest +profit+rent = total surplus

But all the above are flow quantities, the things you are mentioning are
so they do not affect these flow quantities.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST