OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

[OPE-L:2267] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Michael J Williams wrote:

> As Chris has pointed out, VFT is not a 'response' to
> Steedman in this sense. It is a (perhaps a number of
> differing) interpretations and developments of Marx's theory
> united by a rejection of the coherence of any embodied
> labour theory of value, including the one that Steedman
> criticises.

Rejecting the _coherence_ of "any embodied labour theory of
value" is a very strong claim (as opposed to, say, rejecting the
empirical adequacy of such theories, or claiming that they
cannot be made consistent with the axiom of profit-rate
equalization).  How would you justify the charge of incoherence?

Allin Cottrell.
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]