OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L:3484] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


At 11:25 11/06/00 -0400, you wrote:

So this delimitation of the category of commodity, which I agree that Marx accepts upon initial analysis, does not answer the specific question. I am saying that if we don't pinpoint successful market exchange as the point that goods acquire value, then not only would we have to consider inventories as already having acquired value but also (and why not?) production that is not even intended to be sold on the market (say the govt using tax money to hire workers in a transportation dept to build roads--have these roads too acquired value?)

Yes, but they only aquire exchange value if the government sells them off.


 Market exchange is the source of value.

"whenever by an exchange we equate as values our different products, by
that very act, we also equate as human labor the different kinds of labor
expended on them."

The quote does not say the same thing as your summary above. It says that when exchanging we equate the labours embodied. Value is embodied labour, thus when we are exchanging we are equating values. The labour was human labour prior to its product being exchanged.

Marx's criticism of Ricardo is that he did not explain why abstract human
labour had to appear as exchange value rather than directly as amounts
of labour. I.E., he took the historically limited form of representation of
value in capitalist society as given.

Ajit wrote
>You need to ask one
>question to yourself, and may be your Hegelian friends, does Marx have a
>theory of
>demand?

You do not really reply to this. Quoting somebody else as saying that demand in capitalist society stems from accumulation - a disputable thesis anyway - does not answer the question as to where in Capital is the chapter on demand. Ajit was saying that if Marx thought that demand was crucial to the determination of value he would hardly have overlooked an explicit examination of it. Those economists who do think that demand is crucial to the determination of value attempt to construct a theory of it. Marx did not.



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]