NOTE 24(c): The superposition of socially necessary labor time
As I showed in my last post, bourgeois simpletons have tried to expunge the law of value from economics without success. This is because, as Bohm-Bawerk admitted, the law of value provides a weapon for the working class in its conflict with the capitalist. Assuming Marx is correct, says Bohm-Bawerk, “the difference in value that falls as surplus to the capitalist” is revealed by the law:
“And this principle, entirely unfounded as it is, the socialist adherents of the Exploitation theory do not maintain as something unessential, as some innocent bit of system building; they put it in the forefront of practical claims of the most aggressive description. They maintain the law that the value of all commodities rests on the labour time incorporated in them, in order that the next moment they may attack, as ‘opposed to law,’ ‘unnatural,’ and ‘unjust,’ all formations of value that do not harmonise with this ‘law'”
It is obvious why Marx’s law of value might be a problem for Bohm-Bawerk and the neoclassical school, but it is not at all evident why the value-form school should spend so much time trying to expunge the law of value from Marxism as well. In any case, this effort by the value-form school is just as impotent once the content of their criticism of the law of value is explained.
According to the Chris Arthur and value-form school, it is not value that determines the prices of commodities, but prices that create a ‘value dimension’ allowing use-values to then be compared with one another as values: