[OPE-L:2167] Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

["C. J. Arthur" <cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just for the record,as a self-styled 'value-from theorist' I in no way
shape or form accpet Steedman's critique which imo  does not even touch
embodied labour theories. Both embodied labour theories and the
neo-Sraffians belong in the same group in totally ignoring the constitutive
role played by money, which for them is just a counter.
A book I have just reviewed, by Anitra Nelson (also in Australia) is not a
very good book but at least she sees that and in her typology of Marxian
theories in the last chapter lumps Steedman with embodied labour theories.
and puts value form theory in a very different category.
chris


>
>(1) Perhaps the gulf is between different readings of 'Capital':  between
>(i) readings that apparently ignore the importance of Steedman's (1977)
>critique of labour embodied value theory, and continue to see Marx's
>development of this theory as a big contribution; (ii) readings that do
>accept Steedman's critique, but do not accept that it applies also to Marx;
>and (iii) those that accept both the critique and it's applicability to
>Marx, to the extent that his concept of abstract labour can be said to be
>derived from concrete labour (here readings of different editions of
>'Capital' complicate further).
>
>I see VFT (circa 1989) as falling into the third category.  Indeed the
>motivation for reconstructing value theory, summarised VFS (1989, p.54),
>might be interpreted as an implicit acceptance of Steedman's thesis: Marx
>began with (or retained) a labour-embodied theory of value (Marx's theory);
>the labour-embodied theory is both inconsistent and unnecessary; Marxists
>must abandon it.
>comradely, Nicky


P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
<cjarthur@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
but the old one will also run until next summer. (To be doubly sure load both!)