Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 06:16:15 EDT
Paul C says: > >I dont think the statement ' value is labour' is Ricardian. The Ricardian > proposition is that exchange value is determined by labour, with no > distinction being made between value and exchange value. Perhaps I am over-simplifying, and colleagues more familiar with Ricardo's work will correct me, but I think that the two statements ultimately boil down to the same thing - concern with *quantity of labour necessary in production* rather than the *mode of social organisation of production that makes this labour take the form of value (and price)*. >I am saying that value is (socially necessary) labour, and that > it is > indirectly represented in commodity producing societies in the exchange > rates between commodities. > I think I understand now - many thanks. The difference, I believe, is that I would emphasise more the social and historical structures of production, and would pay relatively little attention to the measurement of labour-time in order to understand the price system. This is not at all to say that the latter is of little relevance; but we have to select a point of departure, and of course it will leave an imprint in the character of the analysis and its conclusions. alfredo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT