Poorly phrased question on my part. What Daniel says is true. There was an effort to try to use labor values for planning. It was a disaster, generally recognized as such. Apart from all the other reasons this would have to be so, one is that in a nonmarket economy, a planned you wouldn't have prices that were proportional to values, the LV would not, in fact, operate.
So the real question is: did any of the valuable, constructive, salvagable work on a planned economy that was done by the planners, linear programmers and such in these societies make non-windowdressing use of Marxist categories? Some of it had to be thrown in there for political-ideological reasons or reasons of personal safety.
--- Daniel Davies <d_squared_2002 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Well, they did important work on linear
> programming
> and input-output analyses. The question is, did they
> use Marxist categories in this analysis, as opposed
> to
> being researchers from nominally Communist
> countries.<
>
> For the most part, yes they did make at least some
> use of categories
> recognisable as those of the labour theory of value.
> I've got a book on it
> somewhere.
>
> Marxist categories show up in the oddest places;
> until the late 1990s,
> insurance premium was not a deductable expense,
> because (as noted in the
> Critique of the Gotha Program) analytically it's
> part of surplus-value.
>
> dd
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest