Re: [OPE-L] Why aren't non-labourers sources of value? cost

[ajit sinha <sinha_a99@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Ian Wright <iwright@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ajit
>
> > Now the present
> > day Marxist value theorists, leaving aside their
> > differences about how to measure value, claim that
> > "value" is a definitional category, i.e., it is
> simply
> > defined as "abstract socially necessary labor
> time"
> > represented by A commodity, where "abstract" and
> > "socially necessary labor" are measured in one way
> or
> > the other. Thus in this case, the question is
> > meaningless, since value is simply defined as
> > labor-time and nothing else.
>
> In another post, I also objected to the idea that
> value can simply be
> defined. But I introduced an argument for why value
> necessarily
> represents abstract labour time: it does so because
> the flow pattern
> of value controls the manifestation pattern of
> abstract labour, i.e.
> there are regular causal relations between a
> representation (value)
> and an object (abstract labour).
_____________________
Ian, I don't think I read your earlier post but I'm
not clear what you mean by "value" here. Is value the
same thing as price or exchange ratio between two
commodities for you or something else. Unless it is
made clear, I'll not be able to critique your above
proposition. Cheers, ajit sinha




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide