From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu May 08 2003 - 05:12:43 EDT
Asfilho@AOL.COM wrote: > > > 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*. > 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. 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. -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 09 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT