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

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