Nicky, thanks very much again for your helpful posts.  Thanks especiallyfor reminding me of Geert and Michael's "ideal precommensuration".  Inthinking more about "ideal precommensuration", I think I realize moresimilarities between VF theory and my interpretation of Marx's theory thanI previously thought, and I think I also discovered what seems to asomewhat surprising (to me) underlying source of our differences.  Seewhat you think.  1.  Nicky says (and Geert and Michael say) that, according to VFT, laborpotentially creates value-added, but value-added is not proportional tolabor.We need to distinguish here between IDEAL value-added (as in "idealprecommensuration") and ACTUAL value-added, right?  As I understand it,IDEAL value-added (y) IS proportional to labor-time; i.e.        y = mi liIs this correct?  If so, then the VF determination of IDEAL value-addedhas the same logical structure and the same functional form as myinterpretation of Marxs' determination of value-added - both areproportional to labor.  In both theories, labor is assumed to bedetermined independently of value-added, and then to determine value-added(in part).  For example, an increase of labor causes value-added toincrease proportionally.  Significant differences remain, especially over the precise definition anddetermination of "labor" (and also of mi, the monetary expression oflabor).  But there does not appear to be any deeper methodologicaldifference here regarding the method of determination of IDEALvalue-added.  In the case of IDEAL value-added, systematic dialectics doesnot appear to be incompatible with this type of determination.  There is a"causal link" between labor and IDEAL value-added.2.  ACTUAL value-added is different.  ACTUAL value-added is in general notequal to IDEAL value-added.  Therefore, ACTUAL value-added, unlike IDEALvalue-added, is in general not proportional to labor. As I understand it, the reason why ACTUAL value-added is not equal toIDEAL value-added is that supply is in general not equal to demand,i.e. the actual demand has not been correctly anticipated, right?  But what if supply = demand?  In this case, ACTUAL value-added = IDEALvalue-added, right?  If so, then in this case ACTUAL value-added ISproportional to labor-time.  So in the case of S = D, even thedetermination of ACTUAL value-added has the same logical structure andfunctional form as my interpretation of Marx's determination ofvalue-added.  In VF theory, "actual value-added" appears to be a component of actualMARKET PRICES, as affected by S not = D, and unequal rates of profit.  Inother words, not a component of long-run AVERAGE PRICES, with S = D andequal rates of profit.  "Actual value-added" is related to DISEQUILIBRIUMprices, not to EQUILIBRIUM prices.  Please correct me if I am wrong onthis important point.3.  I argue that Marx abstracted from market prices in all three volume ofCapital.  Or, expressed differently, Marx assumed S = D in all threevolumes of Capital.  In other words, Marx's theory in Capital is notintended to explain actual market prices (although it can easily beextended to explain market prices), but rather to explain long-run averageprices, which are the "centers of gravity" around which actual marketprices fluctuate.  Abstract labor is assumed to determine these long-runcenter-of-gravity prices, not the actual market prices.  Marx's theory is at a very high level of abstraction in all three volumes,even in volume 3.  Volume 3 continues to assume S = D, in the more precisesense of equal rates of profit.  Volume 3 is about the determination ofthe general rate of profit and prices of production, and the furtherdivision of the total surplus-value into merchant profit, interest, andrent.  Divergences of S and D are of minor importance compared to thesebigger and broader questions.  According to Marx's theory, divergences ofsupply and demand do not affect the magnitude of the total surplus-value,but only affect the distribution of this total amount among individualcapitals.  I would be happy to review the extensive textual evidence to support thisinterpretation (please see my paper "Marx's Concept of Prices ofProduction as Long-Run Center of Gravity Prices" on mywebsite: www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley).4.  Would not VF theory agree that the long-run average value-added (withS = D) is equal to the ideal value-added, and hence is  proportional tolabor?5.  If this is correct, then the differences between my abstract laborinterpretation of Marx's theory and value-form theory seems to depend to alarge extent on what the theory is supposed to explain:  long-run averageprices or actual market prices, equilibrium prices or disequilibriumprices.  I hadn't realized this before.  Nicky and Geert and Michael and others, am I right about this - that theVF concept of "actual prices" are market prices, with S not = D andunequal rates of profit? Thanks in advance for your replies.  I look forward to further discussion.Comradely,Fred