>Jerry
>>
>> Expressing my question somewhat differently, isn't Lenin suggesting that
>> value theory is a theory of relative prices
>Duncan
>I don't see why one would suppose this. I kind of doubt Lenin thought very
>much about relative prices.
>Jerry
>> and isn't that part of the
>> Ricardian tradition that Bortkiewicz represented and Marx broke
>> decisively from?
>>
>> [If you want to be really brave you can also define the term "law of
>> value" for us].
>Duncan
>The law of value in my opinion is the idea that the value added is an
>expression of the living labor expended in a period.
>
Paul C:
If this value that is added is not made manifest as a change in the price
of the product relative to the raw materials then the whole marxian theory
of profits is an absurdity. You can not have a theory of surplus value
without a theory of relative prices.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html