IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
I may not have time to intervene at length. One point for now. Any theory will have some statements that are true by definition or which are assumed without proof. But there must be a substantive claim which is to be tested. I had alawys assumed that the said claim in our case is "The magnitude of value is determined by socially necessary labour time." For this to be substantive it is obviously the case that value cannnot be defined as labour or identified by assumption because then it would reduce to a tautology. So my question to those who say "Value is Labour" is this: what IS the substantive claim? Chris 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, (continued)
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, Paul Zarembka Sun 11 May 2003, 22:47 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: is value labour?, gerald_a_levy Mon 12 May 2003, 11:58 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, Michael Williams Tue 13 May 2003, 20:17 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, Paul Zarembka Sat 10 May 2003, 18:16 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, Christopher Arthur Tue 06 May 2003, 16:13 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, Claus Magno Tue 06 May 2003, 19:37 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) is value labour?, clyder Tue 06 May 2003, 21:32 GMT
- (OPE-L) Re: is value labour?, gerald_a_levy Wed 07 May 2003, 12:20 GMT
- Re: (OPE-L) Re: is value labour?, Paul Cockshott Wed 07 May 2003, 12:40 GMT