Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

[Diego Guerrero <diego.guerrero@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Ian,

You wrote

> Is it possible to maintain an ontological distinction between
> labour-value and price if the former is essentially defined in terms
> of the latter?
________________________________

I don't define labour-value in terms of price. I say that value is defined
by the process of labour creating NEW value, which is and has to be made in
a context where the means of production used for this purpose have
previously-determined values. The latter are not the central question
involved: rather they should be treated as the retorts used in the CREATION
of a new chemical substance. I have insisted that _new_ and _old_ values
have to be understood in logical terms, not cronological terms.

________________________________

Ian:
How can labour-values be attractors for prices (the law
> of value) if labour-values cannot be determined independently of
> prices? (This states Francisco's point in another way).
________________________________

Diego:
How can the psicological features of fathers (co)determine that of the
children if the former were children before being fathers?

The formation of real values is a real problem. You have real labour on the
one hand and real inputs with real values on the other. What matters is the
labour process.

Again:
The formation of real prices is a real problem. You have real labour on the
one hand and real inputs with real prices on the other. What matters is the
labour process.



Best wishes,
Diego