Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

From: Ian Wright <>
Date: Mon Aug 31 2009 - 20:55:49 EDT

Hi Michael

Thanks for the help, especially the pointer to the phrase "antecedent
labour". I did a quick search for this phrase in the MIA:!&as_epq=antecedent+labour&as_occt=all&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=

But after chasing up all these references it wasn't obvious to me that
Marx was using a concept of historical labor-value.

Is Hodgskin particularly clear on the importance of using replacement
rather then historical labor costs?

Do you argue that prior to the Civil War cotton famine Marx was using
a historical concept of labor-cost, but after that moved towards
reproduction costs?

I need to re-read Ricardo with this question in mind: but I wonder if
anyone knows where Ricardo falls on this issue?


On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Michael
Perelman<> wrote:
> Marx used historical labor prices when describing the production of an
> individual economy -- what he called antecedent labor.
> Marx especially in v. 2, Marx turned to coexisting labor, based on the work
> of Thomas Hodgskin.
> In my book, Karl Marx's Crises Theories, I make the case that Marx became
> more sensitive to reproduction costs in light of the Civil War cotton
> famine.
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
ope mailing list
Received on Mon Aug 31 20:58:06 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 02 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT