Paul Cockshott wrote:
> As I understand it value is not something intrinsic in a commodity
> but a relation between it as a product and the division of social
> labour which produced it.
I find difficult to understand this phrasing. What does mean a
relation between "a commodity" and the "division of social labor"?
This sounds to me like the relation between an "ice-cream" and a
"financial portfolio". Paul, could you please clarify this idea?
> Because of this there is no law of conservation of value across time.
If this would be true, we cannot calculate neither the rate of
surplus-value nor the profit rate. A capitalist advances $100 (=100
hours of social-labor) in March and she sells the produced commodity
in August for $120 (=120 hours). Was there a "conservation of value
accross time", or not? I think the formula M-C ...P... C*-M* requires
some kind of "conservation of value accross time".
Alejandro Ramos