Re: is value labour?

[Paul Cockshott <wpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Asfilho@xxxxxxx wrote:

 

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*.
 

I dont think the statement ' value is labour' is Ricardian. The Ricardian
proposition is that exchange value is determined by labour, with no
distinction being made between value and exchange value.

I am saying that value is (socially necessary) labour, and that
it is indirectly represented in commodity producing societies in the exchange
rates between commodities.
 

-- 
Paul Cockshott
Dept Computing Science
University of Glasgow



0141 330 3125