From: Dave Zachariah (davez@kth.se)
Date: Mon Feb 25 2008 - 06:44:05 EST
Hi Alejandro, It seems to me that you are attacking too many things at once: 1. The relation between labour values and market prices 2. The relevance of production prices and the transformation problem 3. The potential use of labour value in planned economies They are distinct but related. If you deal with them in turn I think it will be easier to follow your argument. //Dave Z Alejandro Agafonow wrote: > > Paul, > > > > But production price or /natural value/ is very much the same of > labour content. The Norwegian Austro-liberal Trygve Hoff in his > /Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society (1938)/, also wrote > that motor-headlights or tillers could serve as reference signal if > properly used. > > > > The problem is that most Marxists think that production price has both > roles: (1) reference signal and (2) state of the control system. > Overcoming this contradiction has been the kernel of yours and > Cottrell’s model. > > > > Unfortunately, I think you don’t realize it yet. That’s why you assert > following Kantorovich that “valuations arise from the objective > structure of the conditions of production”. This assertion contradicts > the function of prices in your model, that is: (2) state of the > control system. > > > > But this carries us to our former debate about the gravitation centre: > labour or prices? And I have not time to develop further this debate > right now. As I said, I’m going to write a paper dealing with the issue. > > > > Kind regards, > > Alejandro Agafonow _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST