[OPE-L:2244] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

["Michael J Williams" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Michael J Williams <mike.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; OPE-L
<OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:41 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2228] Re: : : : value-form theories


> AGREED. IN MARX'S CAPITAL VOL. I, HOWEVER, THE COMMODITY, ONCE EXCHANGED
> WITH GOLD AS MONEY ON THE MARKET, ALLOWS THE MEASURE IN HOURS. THE
CONCRETE
> LABOUR PRODUCING GOLD, WHICH REPRESENTED THE ABSTRACT LABOUR OF THE
> COMMODITY, IS MEASURABLE IN HOURS. WHAT A MIRACLE! PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL AT
> THE SAME TIME!! THE PROBlEM ARISES WITHOUT THE MONEY COMMODITY. IS IT
> MEANINGFUL A SOCIAL MEASURE OF ABSTRACT LABOUR IN TIME UNITS? CAN WE
DEFINE
> IT? I'M NOT SURE. BUT IF THE ANSWER IS "NO", THEN I INSIST THAT WE SHOULD
> LEAVE ASIDE MARX AND CONSTRUCT A NEW THEORY OF WHICH MARX MAY BE A (MORE
OR
> LESS) DISTANT ANCESTOR. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. SIMPLY IT IS NOT MY
> PROJECT. WHAT AMAZES ME IS THAT VFT THEORISTS WANT TO HAVE MARX'S VALUE
> FORM WITHOUT THE SUBSTANCE. IN DOING THAT THEY ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE
> AND MORE SUBTLE AND SOPHISTICATE, NOT ALWAYS IN THE GOOD SENSE OF THE
> ADJECTIVES.

Substance is not an unproblematical concept. I would need you to unpack what
you have in mind by it. As some of my other recent posts indicated, if we
are committed to a social substance then it is not some formless simple
content in itself that is then to be grasped by a form, but rather is in
itself a complex system. Abstract labour as the content of Value, if we must
think in these terms, is ultimately characterisable only as entailing the
whole capitalist commodity system. Provocatively, the essence is the system!
>
> I AGREE WITH YOUR QUESTION MARK. I WOULD ADD ANOTHER COUPLE(OF QUESTION
> MARKS). I THINK THAT THE DIFFERENCE AMONG US REGARDS ABSTRACTION. I THINK
> IT IS GOING ON ALREADY IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS. THAT THE *SAME* LABOUR
IS
> CONCRETE AND (POTENTIALLY) ABSTRACT, IN THE SAME 'TIME' IN PRODUCTION (I
AM
> LEAVING ASIDE THE REDUCTION ISSUE HERE).

I do not disagree with this as it stands

>THIS POTENTIAL ABSTRACT LABOUR
> MUST BE MEASURABLE IN TIME BEFORE EXCHANGE.

I do not see how or why - and as far as I can see, neither can Rubin, whom
you claim VFT foolishly goes beyond in this respect.

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.]