Re: is value labour?

[Claus Magno <cmgermer@xxxxxxx>]

Alfredo,

I did not understand the meaning of some of your statements. May I ask for
clarification?

> 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.

I'm confused. You say that "for Marx, it is insufficient to base the source
of value on labour time of production". I'm sure I'm not wrong in thinking
that  you don't intend to say that for Marx there is another source of value
than labour, but that is what this phrase seems to mean. Could you clarify
this?

>
> 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*.

In a previou post I argued in what sense it is fair to say that "value is
labour',


> 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.
>