[OPE-L:2118] Re: Depreciation for Paul

S.Mohun (S.Mohun@qmw.ac.uk)
Thu, 9 May 1996 02:03:53 -0700

[ show plain text ]

Alan wrote (inter alia)
>I said I think that v=va+l is ridiculous. That wasn't hyperbole or
>excess. It was a carefully chosen characterisation. I stick by it and I'm
>happy to debate it.

Simon writes:
I think that Marx is very clear.
1. The substance of value is labour.
2. The measure of the magnitude of value is labour-time (SNLT etc)
3. The form of value is exchange-value.

In the absence of technical change etc., why is v=va+l ridiculous? To say
this seems to me to identify value with value-form, or substance with form,
or essence with appearance if you like. Others have gone down this route in
the past, but Marxists have (traditionally anyway) never been happy with the

Simon Mohun,
Dept of Economics,
Queen Mary and Westfield College,
Mile End Road,
London E1 4NS,
Telephone: 0171-975-5089
Fax: 0181-983-3580