[OPE-L:2242] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

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

And I do not understand very well your response. I for one, hold to an
abstract labour theory of value. Labour as grasped by the value-form is the
source of all increase in Value. This is first of all a commonplace of
Classical Political Economy, and more pertinently is demonstrated in the
systematic dialectical presentation - not as early as Marx seems to do it in
Capital, but later, with the development of money and then Capital.

But, as I have just argued in other messages, I cannot grasp Value as a
substance.

Since Reuten-Williams are not running for office, I am not sure what your
remarks about being a 'supporter' are intended to convey? Except perhaps
exasperation, perhaps understandable in the light of the time pressures you
seem to be under?

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.]
----- Original Message -----
From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Michael J Williams <mike.williams@xxxxxxxxx>;
<ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 9:12 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2219] Re: : : value-form theories


> I don't understand very well this post, however, just to put forward a
pris
> de position:
>
> (i) I fully agree that the determination of prices is systemic
>
> (ii) I fully agree that Marx's is not mainly a theory of relative prices.
>
> But no Marx without a labour theory of value in which the adjective is not
> labour. As I repeated some time ago: if VFT convince me of his criticism
of
> value as substance, I would rather become a Cartelier supporter, rather
> than a Reuten-Williams supporter.
>
> riccardo