 I think it's fair to say that usually in comparing value theories between different schools of thought and economics, Marxist economics is understood to subscribe to a labor theory of value, which takes Adam Smith as a point of departure. But that the labor theory value was then repudiated in the marginalist revolution that is associated with Manger and Jevons and Valras. So the thing I'd like to present today is my observation that Friedrich von Hayek appears to subscribe to the labor theory of value. So I'd like to just contrast two quotes. So if we look at Hayek's use of knowledge in society, page 526 he says, assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material say tin has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose, and it is very significant that it does not matter which of these two causes has made tin more scarce. One of the reasons the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin that they use to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere, and that in consequence they must economize tin. There is no need for the great majority of them, even to know where the urgent need has arisen, or in favor of what other needs they ought to husband the supply. There are no acts as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but because they're limited individual fields vision, sufficiently overlap, so that through many intermediaries, the relevant information is communicated to all the mere fact that there is no price for any commodity, or rather, that local prices are connected in a manner determined by the cost of transport etc brings about the solution which might have been arrived at by one single mind, possessing all the information, which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process. Okay, so if we want to paraphrase this more succinctly we would say that the price mechanism is, is the mechanism whereby collaboration happens through society, specifically in terms of the social division of trade, do we want more people mining tin or fewer people mining tin. So, the price system in a capitalist economy is the mechanism for the allocation of social labor. Okay, let's look at what Mark says in his letter to Kugelman written on July 11 1868. And this is commenting on the objection that some people made to capital that he hadn't proven the labor theory value. He writes, Every child knows a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks would perish. The child knows to the masses of products corresponding to the different needs required different and quantitatively different masses of the total labor of society, and the form in which this proportional division of labor asserts itself in the state of society, where the interconnection of social life is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor is precisely the exchange value of these products. I think it's clear that what Marx is saying here is that it is the price system, the exchange value of products that regulates the social division of labor in a capitalist economy. And that that is in fact what he means by the labor theory of value. So I conclude that Hayek and Marx both subscribe to the Marxist labor theory of value.