[OPE-L:2252] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

[riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

	this post needs a 'true' answer. I take it in my files, and hope to
return to it later. You may be surprised, or happy, by the fact that I
found in Sraffa papers in Cambridge a phrase very similar to your 'the
essence is the system!', referred to labour as the substance of value in
Marx. In a sense, we agree because I have a notion of capitalist labour as
abstraction in motion, going on from labour market (labour power as
abstract labour), production (living labour as abstract labour), commodity
exchange (dead labour as abstract labour, and money as the value-form). All
these must have some quantitative (not only monetary) counterpart. Have you
read my paper with Finelli, the one on the transformation from the EEA
conference, and the paper on Napoleoni? There's something more about  all
this stuff.

At 23:08 +0100 19-01-2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
>----- 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.]




	Riccardo Bellofiore
Office:	Department of Economics
	Piazza Rosate, 2
	I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: 	Via Massena, 51
	I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail	bellofio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bellofio@xxxxxxxx
tel: 	+39 035 277545 (direct)
	+39 035 277501 (dept.)
	+39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: 	+39 035 249975