Re: is value labour?

[Asfilho@xxxxxxx]

Paul C says:

> >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. 


Perhaps I am over-simplifying, and colleagues more familiar with Ricardo's work will correct me, but I think that the two statements ultimately boil down to the same thing - concern with *quantity of labour necessary in production* rather than the *mode of social organisation of production that makes this labour take the form of value (and price)*.

>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. 


I think I understand now - many thanks. The difference, I believe, is that I would emphasise more the social and historical structures of production, and would pay relatively little attention to the measurement of labour-time in order to understand the price system. This is not at all to say that the latter is of little relevance; but we have to select a point of departure, and of course it will leave an imprint in the character of the analysis and its conclusions.

alfredo.