On Fri, 3 Nov 2000, Fred B. Moseley wrote: > Medio's presentation is perhaps the clearest expression of this > interpretation that "Volume 1 is about labor-values only". He explicitly > calls his system of equations (2) the "value system". The variables > determined in his "value system" are the labor-values of individual > commodities and the rate of surplus-value (as a ratio of > labor-values). Money and prices do not appear in the "value > system" equations at all. > > Paul Z., Paul C., Allin, and other proponents of the "two system" > interpretation: is Medio's interpretation more or less what you > have in mind by "Volume 1 is about labor-values only"? This is a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. I agree with Medio insofar as I think you can derive commodity values and the rate of surplus value from direct labour coefficients and input-output coefficients, and that (in principle) prices play no part in this sort of calculation. But I don't think vol. 1 is "about labour values only": that would be an odd claim when Marx spends quite a lot of time talking about money. I do think, however, that he assumes prices = values throughout vol. 1 (other than in a few contexts where he explicitly states otherwise) so that his use of pounds, shillings as so on can be taken a shorthand for quanta of labour time. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST