[OPE-L:2216] value-form theories

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

Dear Nicky
No I was not offended. There is a misunderstnding here which relates to
what Jerry often observes, that there are different VF theories. You have
certainly established the relevance of your point to R&W's VFS. I only
wanted to say that I personally, having never been impressed with Steedman,
did not in my trajectory think about VF theory in that context. As far as I
recall I simply tried to take Marx's debt to Hegel as seriously as
possible. There was also the long term effect of reading Rubin and reading
Sohn-Rethel.
On the substantive issues in the discussion I am hoping to put up a long
post soon.
Comradely Chris

>Chris, you seem to have misunderstood me.
>
>At 09:43  15/01/00 +0000, you wrote (OPE-L:2167):
>>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
>>
>>
>
>Oh dear.  I definitely did NOT put VF theorists in a camp with Steedman.  I
>did suggest that R&W's rational for VFT was motivated (in part) by an
>attempt to put Marx beyond labour embodied theories that MIGHT be subject
>to Steedman's critique, *to the extent* that Marx MIGHT be considered to
>have held a labour embodied theory of value, and *to the extent* that
>Steedman's critique - as a critique of labour-embodied theories - MIGHT be
>accepted also as a critique of Marx.
>
>I referenced, as the basis for my statement, a passage from VFS (p.54)
>which tells us that Marx's theory is "at least ambiguous" because it "is
>not clear to what degree Marx actually distanced himself from the Ricardian
>labour-embodied theory of value", and because he derives the key concept of
>abstract labour in a context that is not clearly that of capitalism:  "The
>result is that at some point Marx needs to 'transform' his categories so
>that they suit capitalist exchange and production".  Then, later in the
>same paragraph: "In this chapter - whilst implicitly taking the Steedman
>critique of the labour-embodied theory seriously - we hope to provide a
>development of the abstract-labour theory of value in the light of
>value-form analysis" etc.
>
>Mike W is more explicit in his 1998 paper (CJE,22, p.187):
>
>"Reinstating the dialectic in Marx's account of capitalism is argued to be
>the best way of maintaining its coherence after the Sraffian critique.  The
>key to this involves purging any reliance upon any autonomous labour-value
>substructure underlying prices and money".
>
>Hence I wrote in my post:
>>>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.
>
>Please note, I am not saying that VFT is to be interpreted this way, only
>that it MIGHT be. More to the point, what I am saying here is that VF
>theory MIGHT have ORIGINATED as response to the Steedman critique; i.e. I
>am speculating that VFT may have initially represented an attempt to put
>Marx beyond Steedman's criticisms.  Mike W (OPE-L:2141), who has read me
>correctly, makes it clear to me that he recognises (thanks to Paul C) the
>limitations of Steedman's critique when applied to either labour embodied
>theories or to Marx's theory.  He also draws my attention to the wider
>context within which responses to Steedman AND value-form theories
>developed simultaneously, suggesting that "the value-form perspective may
>be complementary to some of the more recent quantitative attempts to model
>abstract labour without regressing to 'labour-embodied', and indeed to some
>of the empirical defences of Marx's vol I theory of value".  Again in
>(OPE-L, 2186) Mike W says: "Value-form theory has its own justification, that
>is independent of Steedman's critique, and indeed is not subject to it".
>
>
>I think that, taken together, these posts from Mike answered my speculative
>question. Interestingly, however, Riccardo (OPE-L, 2174) raises a possible
>point of similarity between VFT and Sraffa:
>
>>My personal opinion about VFT is that it rightly stressed the dimension of
>'form' in Marx, but that it has lost the 'substance', and there is no
>substance without the form, and viceversa, at least according to Marx. Hic
>Rhodus, hic salta. As a consequence, VFT in my opinion has no quantitative
>'theory', simply a quantitative 'accounting' (just as Sraffa, who
>definitely is not a value form theorist).
>
>Riccardo's point comes very close another question that I was circling
>around, but did not want to broach; i.e. that an escape from the Sraffian
>critique into the analysis of pure 'form' is a great theoretical advance,
>but has a cost?  This question very much relates to the discussions with
>Fred, and concerns the issue of what constitutes a quantitative theory.
>
>Btw, it is so plainly obvious that Sraffa is not a VF theorist that I did
>not think it necessary to say so (thank you Riccardo).  On the other hand,
>I'm not sure that simply lumping Sraffa with labour embodied theories, and
>putting VFT in a separate category - a la Anitra Nelson - does any justice
>to a complex relationship.  That said, I erred in talking about VFT and
>'labour embodied theory' in such general terms.  Sorry, Chris, if i've put
>you in the wrong box and, so, inadvertantly offended.
>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!)