[OPE-L:2271] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ope-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 4:52 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2267] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories


> >
> 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?

'rejecting the coherence of any' is perhaps overstating it, particularly if
one can see no middle epistemological way (!) between analytic and empirical
sources of knowledge. What I have in mind is a conceptual incoherence rather
than either a formal logical contradiction or emprical inadequacy. The core
problem is the heterogeneity of concrete labour and the merely cognitive
nature of the abstract abstraction (sic) to abstract embodied labour. VFT
certainly rejects embodied labour theories. Whether it is successful is of
course a matter of controversy.

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.]