IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
A quick further response to Riccardo: ----- Original Message ----- From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 9:17 AM Subject: [OPE-L:2218] Re: : value-form theories >I have argued that Marx tried an >argument about value where money is the form of value and labour is its >substance. The latter in Marx must be measurable in hours (as Marx said in >the last version he revised, the French one) - and, in some meaningful >theoretical sense, must be measurable before exchange. In Marx's argument, >however, actual value comes into being in exchange, so any argument who >says that abstract labour is fully constituted before exchange is plainly >wrong. Right-on to this last. But as to what comes before, it is only the material-technical aspect of the labour process that is, abstractly abstractly (sic) and indeed approximately quantifiable in person-hours. If anything is the 'substance' of value (and I have already indicating my scepticism about 'substance talk' in this context) it is abstract labour - that has only a social existence and therefore only a social measure. >At the same time, I think that VFT radicalised a (correct) Rubin's argument >which in the end destroys Marx, and which breaks with Rubin himself. My >point of view is based on the idea, to put it briefly, that the key problem >in Marx is not in the transformation of value into prices, but rather in >the theory of money. What should be done is to develop an argument which >allows to maintain the labour theory of value in a theoretical setting >where the theory of money is not based on a money-commodity, either in the >first or in the last instance I hope to get back to this 'over-radicalisation' thesis later. But as I see it, VFT does indeed provide an attempt at what you are seeking in this last sentence? Comradely greetings, Michael ____________________ Dr Michael Williams Economics and Social Sciences De Montfort University Milton Keynes UK fax: 0870 133 1147 http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam [This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
- [OPE-L:2192] Re: Re: value-form theories, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2192] Re: Re: value-form theories, Michael J Williams Mon 17 Jan 2000, 16:35 GMT
- [OPE-L:2199] Re: : value-form theories, Geert REUTEN Mon 17 Jan 2000, 21:18 GMT
- [OPE-L:2218] Re: Re: value-form theories, riccardo bellofiore Wed 19 Jan 2000, 09:18 GMT
- [OPE-L:2222] Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, clyder Wed 19 Jan 2000, 09:43 GMT
- [OPE-L:2225] Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, Michael J Williams Wed 19 Jan 2000, 12:25 GMT
- [OPE-L:2228] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, riccardo bellofiore Wed 19 Jan 2000, 14:45 GMT
- [OPE-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, Michael J Williams Wed 19 Jan 2000, 22:07 GMT
- [OPE-L:2252] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, riccardo bellofiore Thu 20 Jan 2000, 14:43 GMT
- [OPE-L:2254] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories, Michael J Williams Thu 20 Jan 2000, 16:32 GMT