From: Cyrus Bina (binac@MRS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Wed May 07 2003 - 14:33:04 EDT
Alfredo, Bravo! That's the question. Just like: "to be, or not to be"!! Best, Cyrus ----- Original Message ----- From: <Asfilho@AOL.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:45 AM Subject: is value labour? > I seem to remember that we have already been through this issue years ago, on > this list. > > My comment, below, draws on Ben Fine's "Marx's Capital", 3rd ed, 1989, p.6 (a > 4th edition is currently in preparation, by Ben and myself, and it will be > launched later this year by Pluto Press): > > Marx develops the labour theory of value from Smith and, especially, Ricardo. > But what is Marx's own contribution - the difference between his writings and > those of Ricardo? The difference is that, for Marx, it is insufficient to > base the source of value on labour time of production, as Ricardo presumes. > Thus, "value is labour" is not so much wrong as Ricardian - for Marx, this > claim is partial and potentially misleading. > > The trouble with such Ricardian views as "value is labour" is that they take > for granted the existence of exchange, prices and commodities. That > commodities are worth more because they embody more labour begs the questions > of *why there are commodities at all*, and *why it is a relevant abstraction > to assume, at certain stages in the analysis, that commodities exchange at > their labour time of production*. > > This illustrates an important feature of Marx's method: what the economists > (including Ricardo) tend to assume as timeless features of humans and > societies, Marx wanted to root out and understand in historical context. > > Alfredo. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT