Re: [OPE] Brecht and value-form theory

From: Philip Dunn <>
Date: Thu Mar 19 2009 - 18:05:19 EDT

On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 13:47 -0700, Ian Wright wrote:
> Hi Phil
> > The _distinction_ is not dissolved by the non-deviation of prices from
> > values. A price is a sum of money. The intrinsic value of that sum of
> > money can equal the intrinsic value of the commodity it buys while the
> > distinction stands.
> You have a conceptual distinction, but not a quantitative difference.
> Without a quantitative difference between labor-values and prices I do
> not understand how it is possible for the law of value to operate as a
> causal mechanism (e.g., to allocate social labor over time).
> Rubin, for example, is very clear on this.
Hi Ian

If you assume the ergodity of price/value ratios then you have a law of
value. If, however, some large deviations tend to persist over time, you
have non-ergodicity and no law of value. I opine that there is precious
little prospect of ergodicity here.

> > Some single systems do maintain the deviation of prices and values, e.g.
> But do they maintain the conceptual distinction also? Not if they
> *define* labor-values in terms of monetary phenomena (e.g., a MELT).

You are referring SS approaches taking the value of constant capital
transferred as the money paid for it divided by the MELT. However, the
value of one of these constant capital commodity is given as labour-time
plus constant capital transferred when it is produced. This value
_changes_ in circulation to the MELTed value. In aggregate these changes
must sum to zero.

> I believe the LTV requires both a conceptual distinction and a
> quantitative difference between labor-values and monetary phenomena.

Deviations are required but they need not be price/value deviations.

ope mailing list
Received on Thu Mar 19 18:08:29 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT