Re: is value labour?

[Cyrus Bina <binac@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alfredo,

Bravo!  That's the question.  Just like: "to be, or not to be"!!

Best,

Cyrus

----- Original Message -----
From: <Asfilho@xxxxxxx>
To: <OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:45 AM
Subject: is value labour?


> I seem to remember that we have already been through this issue years ago,
on
> this list.
>
> My comment, below, draws on Ben Fine's "Marx's Capital", 3rd ed, 1989, p.6
(a
> 4th edition is currently in preparation, by Ben and myself, and it will be
> launched later this year by Pluto Press):
>
> Marx develops the labour theory of value from Smith and, especially,
Ricardo.
> But what is Marx's own contribution - the difference between his writings
and
> those of Ricardo? The difference is that, for Marx, it is insufficient to
> base the source of value on labour time of production, as Ricardo
presumes.
> Thus, "value is labour" is not so much wrong as Ricardian - for Marx, this
> claim is partial and potentially misleading.
>
> The trouble with such Ricardian views as "value is labour" is that they
take
> for granted the existence of exchange, prices and commodities. That
> commodities are worth more because they embody more labour begs the
questions
> of *why there are commodities at all*, and *why it is a relevant
abstraction
> to assume, at certain stages in the analysis, that commodities exchange at
> their labour time of production*.
>
> This illustrates an important feature of Marx's method: what the
economists
> (including Ricardo) tend to assume as timeless features of humans and
> societies, Marx wanted to root out and understand in historical context.
>
> Alfredo.
>