From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 12:45:22 EST
Hi Diego > First: whether A requires B, or not I and II are defined from labour and > III. > > > > Second: A explains B even if A is expressed by means of B. Is it possible to maintain an ontological distinction between labour-value and price if the former is essentially defined in terms of the latter? How can labour-values be attractors for prices (the law of value) if labour-values cannot be determined independently of prices? (This states Francisco's point in another way). > Third: Marx does and we should use I and II in order to explain the real > quantities (III). Marx does translate between market prices and labour values using a MELT. But he does not define labour values in terms of prices. Price is a "real abstraction" of labour worked, and therefore prices and values are intimately connected, but it seems to me that the abstraction cannot be part of the definition of what is abstracted. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:00:10 EST