Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Wed Feb 28 2007 - 12:45:22 EST 

Hi Diego

> First: whether A requires B, or not I and II are defined from labour and
> III.
>
>
>
> Second: A explains B even if A is expressed by means of B.

Is it possible to maintain an ontological distinction between
labour-value and price if the former is essentially defined in terms
of the latter? How can labour-values be attractors for prices (the law
of value) if labour-values cannot be determined independently of
prices? (This states Francisco's point in another way).

> Third: Marx does and we should use I and II in order to explain the real
> quantities (III).

Marx does translate between market prices and labour values using a
MELT. But he does not define labour values in terms of prices. Price
is a "real abstraction" of labour worked, and therefore prices and
values are intimately connected, but it seems to me that the
abstraction cannot be part of the definition of what is abstracted.

Best wishes,
-Ian.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 02 2007 - 00:00:10 EST