>Michael W. (2)
>would be helpful. As I see it, actual (specifically competent and
differentially
>skilled) labour, usually working in teams, produces commodities, which have a
>'private' use-value and a social value, quantitatively expressed in price.
Sure,
>Labour is the sole necessary prime factor of production of value (though not of
>use-value, and so not of the commodity). Sure, we can arrive at an abstractly
>actual abstract labour prior to exchange by a process of abstraction from
>specific skills and particuar productivities - the expenditure of mental and
>manual effort. What embodied labour theory has failed to establish,
'independent
>of exchange', however, is any necessary quantitiative connection between that
>and exchange-values or prices (except in Adam Smith's hunter-gatherer model).
>
Paul C:
Are you familiar with Farjoun and Machover's demonstration of why, even in a
capitalist economy, labour values will be an attractor for prices?
If you are, why do you reject it?
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html