>1. In OPE-L [3814] Paul Cockshott wrote:
>
> ...it has implications for the single system people too,
> since their approach involves a redefinition of value
> with respect to its original volume 1 definition.
>
>In OPE-L [3816] I said that there is no such a
>"redefinition of value" in the single-system approach.
>The definition of value in V.1 is a particular case of
>that given in V.3, Ch.9. In this post I show this in
>algebraical terms:
>
>
>4. This "derivation" shows that, "for the single system
>people" there is no "a redefinition of value with respect
>to its original volume 1 definition", as claimed by Paul C.
>It is the same definition. The only difference is that in
>V.1 it is considered under very restrictive premises.
>
>So, my question to Paul is: Why do you consider that in the
>single-system approach is there some "redefinition of
>value" in V.3, Ch. 9 with respect to the V.1 definition?
I agree that one can construct a system of prices of production
in which the prices will be equal to the values. But this
is a 'retrospective' definition which of value according
to a particular reading of volume 3.
It is not derivable from the definition in volume 1 and
except in the sort of special case you derive, the value
of a commodity defined as cost price + mehrwerts will not
in general be equal to the labour necessary to produce it.
This is the basic vol 1 definition, that value is socially
necessary labour time. In my view the single system approach
is based on a conflation of value with exchange value.
If one takes value to be exchange value, or at least determined
by exchange value, then values will not in general be proportional
to socially necessary labour time contents.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html