From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Mar 02 2007 - 06:30:39 EST
Saying prices are part of the real definition of commodities is like saying being wet is part of the real definition of water. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values > Are prices are necessary for the existence of labour values? (E.g, are > prices are part of the "real definition" of labour values?). Hi Ian: Yes, prices are a necessary mode of expression of value. Prices are part of the "real definition" of commodities. --------- No to Ians question. Jerrys is a non-sequitur, Prices are 'a' in the sense of one possible, of the necessary modes of expression of value. Another possible mode would be explicit marking of products with their labour contents in a planned economy. Prices may be part of the real definition of commodities - but only post the development of money, in a barter system price as generalised exchange value does not exist. Further there is in Jerry the implicit assumption that value only exists where commodities exist. This is to confuse value with a mode of its representation - exchange value. > In a > hypothetical planned economy without prices are there labour values? No. ------------------- Why not? ------------ > Are prices the only way to measure labour values? Prices are the way in which values come to be expressed. -------------- In contemporary society ------------- Prices are more than merely a "measure" of value. (btw, why do you refer to "labour values"? This seems to me to be redundant and akin to referring consistently to the "productivity of labor" rather than simply "productivity".)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT