IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Sorry about previous nothingness, Andy. Will have another go at attaching the file (I'm using Yahoo, and it takes forever). comradely, Nicky ===== Nicola Taylor Division of Economics Murdoch University Australia Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130 ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;} {\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f3\froman\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05050102010706020507}Symbol;}{\f4\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Times;} {\f5\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helvetica;}{\f6\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Courier;}{\f7\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Geneva;} {\f8\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Tms Rmn;}{\f9\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Helv;}{\f10\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Serif;} {\f11\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}MS Sans Serif;}{\f12\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}New York;}{\f13\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}System;} {\f14\fnil\fcharset2\fprq2{\*\panose 05000000000000000000}Wingdings;}{\f15\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq3{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f16\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f17\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f19\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f20\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f21\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f22\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f23\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;} {\f25\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f26\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f27\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;} {\stylesheet{\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qc\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\qj\li1418\ri1508\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext15 Block Text;}{\s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext16 Body Text;}{\s17\qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext17 Title;}{ \s18\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext18 Body Text 2;}{\s19\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext19 footer;}{\s20\li240\nowidctlpar\widctlpar \tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \lang1024\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 \sautoupd toc 3;}{\s21\sb360\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\caps\f1\lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 \sautoupd toc 1;}{\*\cs22 \additive \f6\fs20\cf1\lang1033 \sbasedon10 footnote reference;}{\s23\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext23 Body Text 2;}{\s24\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext24 footnote text;}}{\*\listtable {\list\listtemplateid-1\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01*;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname ;}\listid-2}{\list\listtemplateid1689417278{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-375\li375\jclisttab\tx375 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat31\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-375\li375\jclisttab\tx375 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid83232969}{\list\listtemplateid-1513582820{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid89204863}{\list\listtemplateid1115426278\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listname ;}\listid92366728}{\list\listtemplateid-924010334\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listname ;}\listid101270241}{\list\listtemplateid-1567167858\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\i0\fbias0 \fi-360\li2520\jclisttab\tx2520 }{\listname ;}\listid150605589}{\list\listtemplateid2087978306{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid158204442}{\list\listtemplateid-1694587634{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid158469562}{\list\listtemplateid121910466{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat11\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid170729009}{\list\listtemplateid-1161760490{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat6\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid172384951}{\list\listtemplateid223274752{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid221914254}{\list\listtemplateid-659278690{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-375\li375\jclisttab\tx375 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-375\li375\jclisttab\tx375 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid249236559}{\list\listtemplateid543032336\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li2520\jclisttab\tx2520 }{\listname ;}\listid256329582}{\list\listtemplateid-641319786{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid293798350}{\list\listtemplateid-177408348\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid294219229}{\list\listtemplateid415537314{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid310253796}{\list\listtemplateid-795051818\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listname ;}\listid394548288}{\list\listtemplateid284468632{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid468665925}{\list\listtemplateid201916441\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc4\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid486899668}{\list\listtemplateid1533172460{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid547230294}{\list\listtemplateid769146896{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid577595279}{\list\listtemplateid-405610580{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-480\li480\jclisttab\tx480 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid588000978}{\list\listtemplateid2066386328{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid636452086}{\list\listtemplateid-762811418\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listname ;}\listid670302594}{\list\listtemplateid-1068565824{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;} \b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080 \jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid758403433} {\list\listtemplateid1328710982{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-435\li435\jclisttab\tx435 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-435\li435\jclisttab\tx435 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid762653602}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid808591453}{\list\listtemplateid-508282966\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-390\li390\jclisttab\tx390 }{\listname ;}\listid822893583}{\list\listtemplateid1642862202{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-420\li420\jclisttab\tx420 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-420\li420 \jclisttab\tx420 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid830145903}{\list\listtemplateid-215720980{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid860435769}{\list\listtemplateid-1839678402{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid924917279}{\list\listtemplateid1288723358\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid929124988}{\list\listtemplateid272772024{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid965427884}{\list\listtemplateid348012882\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-450\li450\jclisttab\tx450 }{\listname ;}\listid987129118}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid990671761}{\list\listtemplateid1965863962{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720 \jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid995180622}{\list\listtemplateid-93926312\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1005478087}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1022122216} {\list\listtemplateid-188211566{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat11 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1029835575}{\list\listtemplateid1840675200{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1056320695}{\list\listtemplateid-1855315426\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1058548883}{\list\listtemplateid114336342{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1064447552}{\list\listtemplateid-709868816{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1121193772}{\list\listtemplateid637016594{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1156724099}{\list\listtemplateid752398426{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1249461272}{\list\listtemplateid-1726203262{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1265041812}{\list\listtemplateid490527128{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-510\li510\jclisttab\tx510 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1270971076}{\list\listtemplateid1834881918{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1290479315}{\list\listtemplateid-1838752466{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid1291518053}{\list\listtemplateid-1383700576{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1297875926}{\list\listtemplateid70179596{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1363898959}{\list\listtemplateid-1391028288{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid1373072202}{\list\listtemplateid-180955114{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-420\li420\jclisttab\tx420 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat23\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-420\li420\jclisttab\tx420 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1382291343}{\list\listtemplateid-1879677322{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\b0\fs24\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid1402559899}{\list\listtemplateid-1568401764{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat5\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1422412363}{\list\listtemplateid856318386{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1451901909}{\list\listtemplateid429022530\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-390\li957\jclisttab\tx957 }{\listname ;}\listid1455513679}{\list\listtemplateid1822705122{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1455517754}{\list\listtemplateid708761758{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1506944279}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat3\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1525941793}{\list\listtemplateid649114030\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listname ;}\listid1554849847}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat3 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1556962634}{\list\listtemplateid-2112724156{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat21\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1570845020}{\list\listtemplateid687656454{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listname ;}\listid1578709642}{\list\listtemplateid-1300199284\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc4\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li2880\jclisttab\tx2880 }{\listname ;}\listid1671909720}{\list\listtemplateid-765974122\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1685089656}{\list\listtemplateid54054598{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360 \jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1722703277}{\list\listtemplateid-1256027266{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li644\jclisttab\tx644 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-495\li495\jclisttab\tx495 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1765568471}{\list\listtemplateid-40338234{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;} \fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid1831824527}{\list\listtemplateid948837606{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat31\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1836216684}{\list\listtemplateid129374550\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fs28\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid1883441802}{\list\listtemplateid-647491552\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li3240\jclisttab\tx3240 }{\listname ;}\listid1896040338}{\list\listtemplateid1269353184{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace0 \levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360 \jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1950746000}{\list\listtemplateid-1044743474{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-435\li435\jclisttab\tx435 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-435\li435\jclisttab\tx435 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid1981419980}{\list\listtemplateid2031768698\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03(\'00);}{\levelnumbers\'02;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid1988587288}{\list\listtemplateid-2029623720{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0 \levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-2160\li2160\jclisttab\tx2160 }{\listname ;}\listid2001156384}{\list\listtemplateid-539726748{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid2019888050}{\list\listtemplateid201916431\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat4\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li360\jclisttab\tx360 }{\listname ;}\listid2032101706}{\list\listtemplateid1983050454{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\i\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\i\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\i\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\i\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\i\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers \'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\i\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;} \i\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\i\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440 \jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\i\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800 \jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid2047873479}{\list\listtemplateid-599471190{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel \levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'03\'00.\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'05\'00.\'01.\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'07\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07;}\fbias0 \fi-720\li720\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'09\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0 \leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0b\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b;}\fbias0 \fi-1080\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'0d\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'0f\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f;}\fbias0 \fi-1440\li1440\jclisttab\tx1440 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \'11\'00.\'01.\'02.\'03.\'04.\'05.\'06.\'07.\'08;}{\levelnumbers\'01\'03\'05\'07\'09\'0b\'0d\'0f\'11;}\fbias0 \fi-1800\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800 }{\listname ;}\listid2095858398}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid-2\listoverridecount1{\lfolevel \listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc23\leveljc0\levelfollow0\levelstartat0\levelold\levelspace0\levelindent360{\leveltext\'01\u-3913 ?;}{\levelnumbers;}\f3\fbias0 \fi-360\li720 }}\ls1}{\listoverride\listid1578709642\listoverridecount0\ls2} {\listoverride\listid830145903\listoverridecount0\ls3}{\listoverride\listid577595279\listoverridecount0\ls4}{\listoverride\listid89204863\listoverridecount0\ls5}{\listoverride\listid1270971076\listoverridecount0\ls6}{\listoverride\listid1981419980 \listoverridecount0\ls7}{\listoverride\listid158469562\listoverridecount0\ls8}{\listoverride\listid1455513679\listoverridecount0\ls9}{\listoverride\listid588000978\listoverridecount0\ls10}{\listoverride\listid221914254\listoverridecount0\ls11} {\listoverride\listid762653602\listoverridecount0\ls12}{\listoverride\listid2095858398\listoverridecount0\ls13}{\listoverride\listid150605589\listoverridecount0\ls14}{\listoverride\listid1671909720\listoverridecount0\ls15}{\listoverride\listid1896040338 \listoverridecount0\ls16}{\listoverride\listid256329582\listoverridecount0\ls17}{\listoverride\listid1090932490\listoverridecount0\ls18}{\listoverride\listid995180622\listoverridecount0\ls19}{\listoverride\listid468665925\listoverridecount0\ls20} {\listoverride\listid1121193772\listoverridecount0\ls21}{\listoverride\listid2019888050\listoverridecount0\ls22}{\listoverride\listid2047873479\listoverridecount0\ls23}{\listoverride\listid1363898959\listoverridecount0\ls24}{\listoverride\listid1029835575 \listoverridecount0\ls25}{\listoverride\listid170729009\listoverridecount0\ls26}{\listoverride\listid860435769\listoverridecount0\ls27}{\listoverride\listid1836216684\listoverridecount0\ls28}{\listoverride\listid310253796\listoverridecount0\ls29} {\listoverride\listid1950746000\listoverridecount0\ls30}{\listoverride\listid1265041812\listoverridecount0\ls31}{\listoverride\listid1290479315\listoverridecount0\ls32}{\listoverride\listid249236559\listoverridecount0\ls33}{\listoverride\listid83232969 \listoverridecount0\ls34}{\listoverride\listid293798350\listoverridecount0\ls35}{\listoverride\listid1722703277\listoverridecount0\ls36}{\listoverride\listid1570845020\listoverridecount0\ls37}{\listoverride\listid1056320695\listoverridecount0\ls38} {\listoverride\listid1156724099\listoverridecount0\ls39}{\listoverride\listid1249461272\listoverridecount0\ls40}{\listoverride\listid158204442\listoverridecount0\ls41}{\listoverride\listid294219229\listoverridecount0\ls42}{\listoverride\listid1525941793 \listoverridecount0\ls43}{\listoverride\listid1022122216\listoverridecount0\ls44}{\listoverride\listid1297875926\listoverridecount0\ls45}{\listoverride\listid1883441802\listoverridecount0\ls46}{\listoverride\listid1506944279\listoverridecount0\ls47} {\listoverride\listid1382291343\listoverridecount0\ls48}{\listoverride\listid808591453\listoverridecount0\ls49}{\listoverride\listid990671761\listoverridecount0\ls50}{\listoverride\listid1556962634\listoverridecount0\ls51}{\listoverride\listid1455517754 \listoverridecount0\ls52}{\listoverride\listid1554849847\listoverridecount0\ls53}{\listoverride\listid1765568471\listoverridecount0\ls54}{\listoverride\listid101270241\listoverridecount0\ls55}{\listoverride\listid1451901909\listoverridecount0\ls56} {\listoverride\listid92366728\listoverridecount0\ls57}{\listoverride\listid670302594\listoverridecount0\ls58}{\listoverride\listid1422412363\listoverridecount0\ls59}{\listoverride\listid1988587288\listoverridecount0\ls60}{\listoverride\listid394548288 \listoverridecount0\ls61}{\listoverride\listid486899668\listoverridecount0\ls62}{\listoverride\listid929124988\listoverridecount0\ls63}{\listoverride\listid987129118\listoverridecount0\ls64}{\listoverride\listid1005478087\listoverridecount0\ls65} {\listoverride\listid1685089656\listoverridecount0\ls66}{\listoverride\listid1831824527\listoverridecount0\ls67}{\listoverride\listid965427884\listoverridecount0\ls68}{\listoverride\listid172384951\listoverridecount0\ls69}{\listoverride\listid2001156384 \listoverridecount0\ls70}{\listoverride\listid1291518053\listoverridecount0\ls71}{\listoverride\listid1402559899\listoverridecount0\ls72}{\listoverride\listid758403433\listoverridecount0\ls73}{\listoverride\listid636452086\listoverridecount0\ls74} {\listoverride\listid1373072202\listoverridecount0\ls75}{\listoverride\listid547230294\listoverridecount0\ls76}{\listoverride\listid924917279\listoverridecount0\ls77}{\listoverride\listid1064447552\listoverridecount0\ls78}{\listoverride\listid1058548883 \listoverridecount0\ls79}{\listoverride\listid822893583\listoverridecount0\ls80}{\listoverride\listid2032101706\listoverridecount0\ls81}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\info{\title Abstract Labour and Social Mediation in Marxian Value Theory}{\author Nick M}{\operator Nick M} {\creatim\yr2001\mo3\dy21\hr10\min28}{\revtim\yr2001\mo3\dy21\hr10\min28}{\version2}{\edmins0}{\nofpages110}{\nofwords25140}{\nofchars143299}{\*\company Academia}{\nofcharsws175981}{\vern71}}\paperw11906\paperh16838\margl2552\margr1418 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\formshade\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot \fet0\sectd \psz9\linex0\headery709\footery709\colsx709\endnhere\sectdefaultcl {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2 \pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s3\qc\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright { \par }\pard \s3\qc\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright { \par }\pard\plain \s1\qc\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid {\f0\fs32 Abstract Labour and Social Mediation in Marxian Value Theory \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par \par }\pard \qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {\b By \par \par }\pard\plain \s2\qc\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel1\adjustright \b\lang3081\cgrid {Nicola M. Taylor \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par }\pard \qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {Bachelor of Economics (Honours) \par Murdoch University \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {\b \par }\pard \qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {\b \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s15\qj\ri-1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {This thesis is presented as part of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Economics with Honours in Economics, at Murdoch University. \par }\pard\plain \qr\ri-1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {4}{\super th}{ November, 2000 \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s17\qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {Acknowledgments \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\ri-7\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par \par I thank my supervisor, Paul Flatau, for his helpful suggestions and encouragement during the writing of the dissertation, which also benefited from extensive and e njoyable discussions with Chris Arthur, Riccardo Bellofiore, Andrew Brown, Jerry Levy, Fred Moseley, Alfredo Saad Filho, Geert Reuten and Michael Williams. Special thanks are due to Geert Reuten and Alfredo Saad Filho for their invaluable comments and su ggestions on earlier drafts and chapters. Funding for the research was provided by a Murdoch University \ldblquote Honours Excellence Scholarship\rdblquote . \par \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par \par }\pard \sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s19\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s17\qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid { \par Abstract \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 \par \par The dissertation inquires into }{\i\cgrid0 abstract-labour}{\cgrid0 as the source of value in a capitalist econo my. A key question is whether value can exist prior to exchange as a physiological substance embodied in commodities, or whether it is a social dimension brought into existence only as the result of market activity? A corollary question concerns the mea surement of value: is it measured as an amount of labour time expended in production or is it measured only in money, as an exchange ratio between commodities? \par \par A textual analysis of the starting point of }{\i\cgrid0 Capital}{\cgrid0 shows abstract-labour to be an ambiguous concept. Criticism centres on Marx\rquote s lack of clarity with respect to method. First, it is unclear as to whether abstract-labour is a reductive category describing an amount of homogeneous labour embodied in commodities (a labour theory of value), or a dialectical universal describing a \lquote real abstraction\rquote from particular types of labour, established in exchange (a theory of social form). Second, abstract-labour is conceptualised as a \lquote substance\rquote of value and this implies a logical order where value precedes price and, indeed precedes the existence of capitalism. \par \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 Theoretical and empirical problems associated with a variety of interpretations of Marx\rquote s abstract-labour-embodied value theory are identified and discussed. The main argument against labour-embo died theories (whether physiological or social) is that they deny any ontological role to money (capital) in determining the character and level of productive activity in a capitalist economy. As a result of this value-price dichotomy, the imperative of valorisation (the process of increasing value) driving the capitalist system is inadequately captured within these theories. \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 \par I present and defend a dialectical reconstruction of abstract-labour and value as social categories that come into existence only to the extent that markets transform the imperatives driving the production process. Causality is systemic, determining abstract-labour as the }{\i\cgrid0 form}{\cgrid0 that social labour takes in capitalism and money as the }{\i\cgrid0 sole measure}{ \cgrid0 of the value of labour, labour-power and commodities. A further determination of the labour process as a technical process and a valorisation process supports the main conclusion: labour (in the process of valorisation) is the one and only source of value-added. The result is established w ithout recourse to abstract labour as the value \lquote substance\rquote , purging any reliance on autonomous \lquote labour-values\rquote underlying prices and money. \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s17\qc\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490896754}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490897279}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491152925}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154423}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155187}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165898} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165991}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166055}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166119}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166183}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166247}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166311}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166431}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166856}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167458} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167594}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167853}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167917}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168234}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168348}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168912}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169419}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169599}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169827} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169910}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170091}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170220}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170287}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170515}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170851}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171473}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171582}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171693} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171760}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171827}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171893}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171959}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172370}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172436}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172823}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172889}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173287} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173427}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491175102}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491176071}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177101}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177432}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177655}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177979}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178084}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178268} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178451}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178703}Contents \par }\pard\plain \s20\li240\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \lang1024\cgrid { \par \par \par \par }\pard \s20\li238\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright {Statement of Originality\tab i \par Acknowledgements\tab ii \par Abstract\tab iii}{\b \par }\pard\plain \s21\sb360\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \b\caps\f1\lang3081\cgrid {\field\fldedit{\*\fldinst {\b0\fs32 TOC \\o "1-3" }}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 1. Labour, Value and Money\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155224 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320034000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 6}}}{\lang1024 \par }\pard \s21\sb360\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright {\lang1024 2. Value Theory: Content and Concepts\tab {\*\bkmkstart _Hlt497995978}}{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155225 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320035000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 12}}}{\lang1024 {\*\bkmkend _Hlt497995978} \par }\pard\plain \s20\li238\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \lang1024\cgrid {2.1 Two Types of Abstraction\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155226 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320036000000}}}{\fldrslt {14}}}{ \par 2.2 Hegel\rquote s Logic: Principles and Implications\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155227 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320037000000}}}{\fldrslt {18} }}{ \par 2.3 Abstract Labour: Analytic or Dialectic Abstraction?\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155228 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320038000000}}}{\fldrslt {22 }}}{ \par 2.4 Value-Form and Commodity Fetishism\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155229 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200320039000000}}}{\fldrslt {28}}}{ \par Conclusion\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155230 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330030000000}}}{\fldrslt {32}}}{ \par }\pard\plain \s21\sb360\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \b\caps\f1\lang3081\cgrid {\lang1024 3. Two Paradigms, Two Problems\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155231 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330031000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 35}}}{\lang1024 \par }\pard\plain \s20\li238\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \lang1024\cgrid {3.1 The Technical Paradigm\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155232 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330032000000}}}{\fldrslt {36}}}{ \par 3.2 The Social Paradigm\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155233 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330033000000}}}{\fldrslt {46}}}{ \par 3.3 Abstract Labour: Substance versus Form\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155234 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330034000000}}}{\fldrslt {56}}}{ \par Conclusion\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155235 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330035000000}}}{\fldrslt {61}}}{ \par }\pard\plain \s21\sb360\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \b\caps\f1\lang3081\cgrid {\lang1024 4. Abstract Labour: A Reconstruction\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155236 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330036000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 63}}}{\lang1024 \par }\pard\plain \s20\li238\sl360\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \lang1024\cgrid {4.1 Critique and Reconstruction\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155237 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330037000000}}}{\fldrslt {65}}}{ \par 4.2 A Systematic Dialectical Starting Point\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155238 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330038000000}}}{\fldrslt {68}}}{ \par 4.3 Concrete Dissociated and Abstract Associated Labour\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155239 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200330039000000}}}{\fldrslt {69 }}}{ \par 4.4 Reconstructing the Theory of Value-Form\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155240 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200340030000000}}}{\fldrslt {71}}}{ \par 4.5 The Concept of Abstract-Labour: a Criticism and a Defence\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155241 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200340031000000}} }{\fldrslt {84}}}{ \par Conclusion\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst { PAGEREF _Toc498155242 \\h }{{\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200340032000000}}}{\fldrslt {90}}}{ \par }\pard\plain \s21\sb360\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tqr\tldot\tx7926\adjustright \b\caps\f1\lang3081\cgrid {\lang1024 5. Conclusion\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155243 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200340033000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 92}}}{\lang1024 \par References\tab }{\field{\*\fldinst {\lang1024 PAGEREF _Toc498155244 \\h }{\lang1024 {\*\datafield 08d0c9ea79f9bace118c8200aa004ba90b02000000080000000e0000005f0054006f0063003400390038003100350035003200340034000000}}}{\fldrslt {\lang1024 100}}}{\lang1024 \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid }}\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid { {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438958}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701580}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078470}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078919}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079262}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079528}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161203}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161286}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161324} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161478}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161611}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161689}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161999}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169594}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927301}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927532}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987915}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153928} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154106}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155224}1. Labour, Value and Money{\*\bkmkend _Toc490896754}{\*\bkmkend _Toc490897279}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491152925}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491154423}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155187}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165898} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491165991}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166055}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166119}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166183}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166247}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166311}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166431}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166856}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167458} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491167594}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167853}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167917}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168234}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168348}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168912}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169419}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169599}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169827} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491169910}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170091}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170220}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170287}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170515}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170851}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171473}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171582}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171693} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491171760}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171827}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171893}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171959}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172370}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172436}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172823}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172889}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173287} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491173427}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491175102}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491176071}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177101}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177432}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177655}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177979}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178084}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178268} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491178451}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178703}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438958}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701580}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078470}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078919}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079262}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079528}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161203} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161286}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161324}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161478}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161611}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161689}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161999}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169594}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927301}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927532} {\*\bkmkend _Toc497987915}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153928}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154106}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155224} \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par \par In a }{\i Postface }{to the second edition of }{\i Capital 1,}{ Marx (1873) complained that his book had not been well understood and made a number of remarks linking the content of his value theory to Hegel\rquote s method and form theory. Yet, this }{ \i Postface}{ was itself notoriously ambivalent, especially concerning Marx\rquote s application of the Hegelian notions of doubling and appear ance to his critique of the classical categories of labour, value and labour time (Arthur, 1993; Murray, 1993; Reuten, 1993; Smith, 1993). Today the question of Marx\rquote s method remains disputed, as does his value theory. Is it a variation on the classical labour theory of value, arising from a critical transformation of Ricardian concepts; if not, what kind of a theory is it? \par \par Fischer (1982) suggests that this question constitutes the \lquote most comprehensive\rquote and controversial issue in Marxian political econo my. At stake is the important question of what type of labour is abstract labour, and what is the relation of that labour to the value of capitalist commodities. Here, Marx\rquote s exposition in the first Chapter of }{\i Capital }{ is a notoriously difficult and enigmatic source}{\i .}{ Not only does Marx derive abstract labour differently in the several language editions of }{\i Capital}{ that he edited in his lifetime, but he also presents different views on the concept within texts (see Bellofiore, 1999; Rubin, 1928/1972). At times abstract labour appears as \lquote }{\i substance}{ of value\rquote : a \lquote natural\rquote or physiological property }{\i of}{ particular commodities, or a proposition in the derivation of a general \lquote law of value\rquote pertaining to all forms of economic organisation in which there is a divis ion of labour. At other times, the concept expresses a relation of equivalence }{\i between}{ private labours that can come about only when diverse commodities are brought into a form of social equality in the market. In the latter sense, abstract labour has a distinctly non-Ricardian flavour: it is a category with economic significance only to the extent that the practice of exchange transforms and defines the imperatives driving the production process. \par \par Marx\rquote s ambivalence regarding the ontological character of abstract labour manifests in contemporary debates as a serious epistemological disagreement over the }{\i meaning}{ and }{\i measurement}{ of concepts}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ The origins of the debate are to b e found in the confluence of the 'new Australian-German idealism' (Backhaus, 1969/1980; Eldred, Hanlon, Kleiber and Roth, 1982, 1983); the rediscovery of Rubin\rquote s (1928/1972) }{\i Essays on Marx\rquote s Theory of Value;}{ the emergence of a concept of 'real abstraction' (Arthur, 1979a; Himmelweit & Mohun, 1978; Mohun, 1984); the Italian debate on abstract-labour (reproduced in the }{\i International Journal of Political Economy}{ , 1998; reviewed Bellofiore, 1999); and Elson\rquote s (1979a) }{\i Value Theory of Labour}{. Important contemporary contributions include: Arthur (2000), Bellofiore (1989), Itoh (1993), }{\lang3081\cgrid0 Likitkijsomboon, (1995), }{ Mohun (1994a), Murray (1993, 1997), Postone (1993), Reuten and Williams (1989), Sekine (1998), Smith (1990), Williams (1992, 1998); and contributions by thes e and other writers to the following edited collections: Arthur and Reuten (1998), Bellofiore (1998b), Mohun (1994b), Moseley, (1993b), Moseley and Campbell (1997); and individual papers by Arthur, Reuten and Bellofiore in }{\i Rivista Di Politica Economica}{ (1999). \par }}}{. Did Marx see value as the objective representation of a natural }{\i substance}{ (abstract-labour) embodied in particular commodities }{\i prior to exchange}{ , therefore measurable in labour time (e.g. Sweezy, 1946; Mandel, 1990)? Or did he see value as an historical expression of the }{\i social form}{ that productive private labour assumes, as it is abstracted, alienated and }{\i mediated by exchange}{ , therefore measurable only in money (e.g. Arthur, 1999; Reuten, 1999; Williams, 1998)? Did Marx present an original, if somewhat inadequate, synthesis of classical value theory and Hegelian form theory (e.g. Reuten, 1993); or did he present two contradictory value theories, and shift irresolutely between them (e.g. Mirowski, 1990)? These questions pose critical problems for any evaluation of the theoretical consistency of Marx\rquote s value theory, raising the question of how far the categories of }{\i Capital}{ are in fact adequate to its \lquote subject matter\rquote (Bellofiore, 1998a). \par \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {This point \endash about the need to re-evaluate Marx\rquote s concepts in terms of the cogency of his project \endash provides the rational for the current inquiry. The dissertation has two objectives. The first object is to clarify the ontological meaning and methodological status of a central concept of Marx\rquote s and Marxian value theory: abstract-labour. Subsidiary to this is a demonstration that the ambiguities arising out of different interpretations of abstract-labour inhere in the text of }{\i Capital}{ , and not in the great variety of appropriations of it. The second objective is to undertake a critical investigation into a key proposition of Marx\rquote s abstract-labour theory of value: that abstract-labou r embodied in commodities during production (independently of exchange) is the one and only source of surplus value. Special emphasis will be given to an alternative view of abstract-labour as a category in a theory of \lquote social value\rquote or \lquote value-form\rquote where money has ontological significance in determining economic outcomes, including the determination of abstract-labour as value. This leads up to a core research question: must Marx\rquote s abstract-labour (embodied) theory of value be abandoned as inadequate to the theorisation of capitalism, or can Marxian categories be reconstructed to provide a theory of the social constitution of the nexus of value and money? This heuristic question motivates the analysis throughout the dissertation. I hope to show that a theory of \lquote social value\rquote is implicit in Marx\rquote s }{\i Capital}{ and, moreover, to suggest some ways in which that theory might be explicitly developed. \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx284\tx357\adjustright {\fs28 \tab }{\fs20 THESIS OUTLINE}{ \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright {A full inquiry into Marxian value theory would require a detailed analysis of the whole of }{\i Capital}{ engaging the contentious issue of Marx\rquote s theory of science - in relation to that of the classical economists as well as Hegel\rquote s logic. Here, I focus in a more limited way on the opening chapter of the first volume where Marx introduces his central con cepts: the commodity, abstract-labour, value, exchange-value, money and value-form. Although these concepts do not constitute the whole of value theory, the efficacy of the starting point is an important factor in current disputes. Moreover, in making e xplicit criteria for evaluating (and reconstructing) Marx\rquote s starting point, I hope to show how the impasse concerning the ontological and methodological status of core concepts \endash abstract-labour and value \endash might be circumvented, if not resolved. \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright {The first chapter poses a preliminary question concerning Marx\rquote s (1867a) development of the double character of commodities and labour in relation to their determination by social form. Marx clearly saw the value/use-value and abstract-labour/concrete-labour duali ties as crucial to his value theory, but what are we to make of these oppositions? Are they analytic or dialectical oppositions and how does the answer given to this question prejudice the way that Marxian value theory is understood? In the first two se ctions of his chapter, Marx\rquote s analysis appears to be similar to that of the classical political economists. He posits economic relations as the causal product of external determination, particularly in nature; the concepts of abstract-labour and value are taken to be natural phenomena. In the final two sections, however, Marx\rquote s method seems to be more closely associated with Hegel\rquote s (1817) }{\i Logic}{. He suspends }{\i a priori}{ presuppositions and understands economic relations only as a development within a social (systemic) set of interconnected determinations; the concepts of abstract labour and value are social phenomena. This juxtaposition of competing strands of capitalist thought in Marx\rquote s text suggests that Bellofiore\rquote s (1998a) question concerning the cogency of Marx\rquote s project is not resolvable by reference to the text of }{\i Capital}{, but only by serious discussion of the analytic status of Marxian categories. \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The second chapter reviews the major effect of Marx\rquote s ambivalent derivation of abstract-labour: a paradigmatic splitting of Marx\rquote s value theory into concrete-labour-embodied (technical) and abstract-labour-embodied (social) value theories (cf. de Vroey, 1982). Contemporary debates arising from the paradigmatic split are considered in relation to the ques tion of the source and measure of value. I identify theoretical and empirical problems in technical versions of the labour-embodied theory of value, which reduces Marx\rquote s abstract-labour theory to a theory of prices derived from the quantity of labour time embodied in commodities. I then introduce social value theories, which attempt to integrate technical (natural) and social (historical) elements of Marx\rquote s value theory, and thus establish the necessity of money (and exchange) to the existence of value. The main question is whether these social theories succeed in resolving the difficulties of a theory of value immanently measured in labour time. I introduce an argument for money as the only measure of abstract-labour and the only indicator of the actua lity of value. \par \par The third chapter examines recent \lquote reconstructions\rquote of Marx\rquote s concepts, in accordance with systematic dialectical principles of logic (Hegel, 1812, 1817). The heuristic purpose behind reconstruction is to \lquote step outside\rquote the methodological and substantive inconsistencies of Marxian value theory and articulate the unity of production and exchange within a }{\i specifically capitalist totality }{(Reuten, 1993). From this point of view, }{\i Capital}{ is most fruitfully read as a critical contribution to an }{\i ongoing inquiry}{ into the social determination of value and labour, an inquiry concerned with a problematic very different from that of Ricardo. In these new theories of value-form, Ricardian (labour-embodied) elements of Marxian value theory are aban doned, along with all reference to abstract-labour as the embodied \lquote substance\rquote of value. \par \par }\pard\plain \s23\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The concluding chapter returns to the economic problem of whether value can exist - either ontologically or conceptually \endash before (market) exchange; I review the alternative responses to the question within contemporary Marxism. The main conclusion is that labour-embodied theories of value }{\cgrid0 (whether physiological or social) }{ are inadequate, to the extent that they deny any ontological role to money (capital) in the reproduction of the capitalist economy. }{\cgrid0 As a result of this value-price dichotomy, the imperative of valorisation (the expansion of value) driving the capitalist system is inadequately captured within these theories. }{The analysis supports an argument for s ystematic dialectical reconstruction of Marx\rquote s concept of abstract-labour as }{\i social value}{, measured only in money. Current reconstructions verify Marx\rquote s key insight: labour is the one and only source of value-added in the valorisation process. The result is arrived at without any reliance on labour-value substructures underlying prices and money. \par }\pard \s23\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490896756}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490897281}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491152927}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154425} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155190}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165901}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165994}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166058}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166122}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166186}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166250}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166314}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166434} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166859}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167461}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167597}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167856}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167920}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168237}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168351}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168915}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169422} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169602}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169830}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169913}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170094}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170223}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170290}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170518}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170854}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171476} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171585}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171696}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171763}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171830}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171896}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171962}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172373}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172439}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172826} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172892}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173290}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173430}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491175105}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491176074}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177104}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177435}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177658}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177982} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178087}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178271}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178454}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178706}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438961}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701583}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078471}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078920}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079263} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079529}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161204}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161287}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161325}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161479}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161612}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161690}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162000}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169595} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927302}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927533}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987916}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153929}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154107}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155225}2.{\*\bkmkend _Toc490896756}{\*\bkmkend _Toc490897281}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491152927} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491154425}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155190}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165901}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165994}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166058}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166122}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166186}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166250}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166314} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491166434}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166859}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167461}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167597}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167856}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167920}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168237}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168351}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168915} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491169422}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169602}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169830}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169913}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170094}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170223}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170290}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170518}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170854} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491171476}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171585}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171696}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171763}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171830}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171896}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171962}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172373}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172439} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491172826}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172892}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173290}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173430}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491175105}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491176074}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177104}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177435}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177658} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491177982}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178087}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178271}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178454}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178706} {\*\bkmkend _Toc492438961}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701583}Value Theory: Content and Concepts{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078471} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493078920}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079263}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079529}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161204}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161287}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161325}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161479}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161612}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161690} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493162000}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169595}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927302}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927533}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987916}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153929}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154107}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155225} \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {\b \par \par }{The subtitle of the first volume of Marx\rquote s (1867a) }{\i Capital}{ identifies Marx\rquote s project as a \lquote critique of political economy\rquote . What is the salient feature, or definitive object, of Marx\rquote s critique? On this point, Marx is quite clear: the great merit of classical political economy was to have discovered the content of value in labour; its great defect was never to have discovered the determination of value and labour by social form}{ \cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ Marx (1867a) writes: \ldblquote Political economy has indeed analysed value and its magnitude, however incompletely, and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms. But it has never once asked the question why this content has assumed that parti cular form, that is to say, why labour is expressed in value, and why the measurement of labour by its duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product\rdblquote (pp.173-175). \par \par }}}{. This raises a preliminary research question: is Marx\rquote s \lquote social\rquote value theory a clarification and extension of the classical \lquote labour-embodied\rquote theory of value, or is it a refutation of it? That Me used in dating Backhaus (1969/1980) whose work, originally published in German, influenced the development of contemporary reconstructions of value theory. }}}{ . The methodological debate centres on interpretation of the Marxian dialectic in relation to Hegel\rquote s (1812, 1817) logic, especially the role that dialectical thinking plays in Marx's analysis of social form (therefore his critique of classical value theory). The first section begins by introducing what is meant by \lquote analytic\rquote and \lquote dialectical\rquote abstraction, identifies possibl e sources of terminological confusion, and relates alternative conceptions of abstract-labour to two models of essence and appearance (Ricardian and Hegelian). The second section elaborates the systematic dialectical mode of argument, and sets out some e xplicit criteria for judging Marx\rquote s presentation. The third and fourth sections present a textual analysis of the first chapter of }{\i Capital}{, focusing attention on Marx\rquote s problematic derivation of the concept of abstract-labour, in relation to his theory of value-form.{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078472}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078921} \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161613}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161691}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162001}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169596}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927303} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927534}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987917}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153930}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154108}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155226}2.1 Two Types of Abstraction}{{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161613}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161691}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162001} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493169596}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927303}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927534}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987917}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153930}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154108}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155226} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493078472}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078921} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Behind debates on Marx\rquote s method in }{\i Capital}{ is a generally agreed presumption that this work is somehow distinct from all other works in political economy, a presumption fuelled by Marx\rquote s (1873) own claims about the \lquote dialectical\rquote character of the work. Marx was, however, never explicit about his understanding of dialectical }{\i reality}{ in relation to his }{\i theory}{ of capitalism. Are economic relations the product of historical processes, mirrored directly in the conc epts of }{\i Capital}{ as Engel\rquote s (1894a, 1894b) believed; or, do concepts appropriate reality at best circuitously, via a purely logical movement from abstract concepts to concrete determinations as Marx suggested in his (1857/1973) draft }{\i Introduction}{? \par \par Lack of agreement as to the particular meaning of the historical and/or logical dialectic in Marx turns on the fundamental question of what, exactly, Marx learned from Hegel. As Arthur (1997) points out, Hegel\rquote s work contains examples of both \lquote historical\rquote and \lquote systematic\rquote dialectics; the former \lquote exhibiting the inner connection between stages of development in a temporal process\rquote , the latter \lquote exhibiting the inner articulation of a given whole \rquote (p.10). It appears, from Arthur\rquote s account, that Engels conflates the two dialectics, although Marx makes it clear in his (1857/1973) draft }{\i Introduction}{ that his intellectual debt is to Hegel\rquote s theory of }{\i logical}{ development. Arthur goes on to argue that Engels\rquote s \lquote misinterpretation\rquote of the Marxian dialectic as a logical-historical method has resulted in major terminological confusions, such that the meaning of Marx\rquote s concepts and the role that they play in his value theory have been widely misunderstood. \par \par One pervasive effect of different understandings of Marx\rquote s method is that different Marxian writers use the same terms and concepts to mean different things. The term \lquote abstract-labour\rquote may be used for example to refer to a }{\i physiological substance}{ embodied in commodities during production, or to a }{\i social form}{ that labour assum es when commodities are exchanged. In order to clarify these semantic confusions, I propose to use the term abstract-labour-embodied whenever I refer to interpretations in which abstract-labour is seen to be a \lquote substance of value\rquote , a }{\i property of}{ commodities with a natural existence independent of the social institution of exchange. I reserve the term abstract-labour for interpretations of value as a \lquote social\rquote dimension that acquires actuality only as a }{\i relation between}{ commodities, establishing the equivalence of private labours through practical abstraction in the market. This terminological decision should not be taken to imply a judgement on Marx\rquote s own use of the term \lquote abstract-labour\rquote . As I will demonstrate, any attempt to establish whether Marx held a }{\i social}{ (abstract-labour) theory of value or a }{\i physiological}{ (abstract-labour-embodied) theory of value founders on textual evidence for both interpretations. \par \par Although the terminological difficulties associated with the }{\i meaning}{ of the concept of abstract-labour may be over-come by this simple expedient of renaming the terms in a debate, the question of the }{\i analytic status}{ of the concept remains. The solution adopted in this dissertation is to relate alternative interpretations of value theory to the two models of essence and appearance, distinguished by Murray (1993). In \lquote Ricardian\rquote models, a dichotomy of essence and appearance operates such that value (essence) is \lquote given\rquote as an axiom at the start of a linear derivation, or as something \lquote real\rquote that is e mbodied in commodities as the result of productive activity. Money (appearance) is then theorised as a phenomenal form, external to the essential character of value. In Hegelian models, essence and appearance coexist as a \lquote unity in difference \rquote such that value and its monetary expression are }{\i mutually constituted}{ by the essential character of the capitalist mode of production for exchange. The relation between these models and interpretations of abstract-labour can be explicated as follows: \par \par In the Ricardian essence-appearance model, value exists }{\i a priori}{ and is \lquote conserved\rquote across analytic levels of abstraction. In axiomatic models, the value-price relationship is conceptualised in terms of hypotheses about embodied-labour-values and the cause-effect relat ionships that result once market relations are introduced into the basic labour-value models (e.g. Sweezy, 1946). In logical-historical models, capitalist relations impinge upon earlier forms of productive activity, affecting modifications in a general \lquote law\rquote of value (e.g. Mandel, 1990). These analytic and logical-historical approaches posit an }{\i independence}{ of \lquote value\rquote from its }{\i external}{ expression in the \lquote value-form\rquote (money); in this respect, they are associated with abstract-labour-embodied interpretations of Marxian value theory. \par \par In contrast with \lquote Ricardian\rquote models, \lquote Hegelian\rquote models apply a \lquote conceptual\rquote \endash rather than an ontological \endash dialectic; what Arthur (1979b) calls the }{\i logic of the concrete}{ . Within the conceptual dialectic, all axioms are eschewed, and concepts such as value and abstract-labour have a }{\i provisional}{ existence, yet to be determined within the analysis: \lquote the actual existent is first of all possibility, but without further determination it is only that\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.10). What this means is that concepts are given provisionally as universal/particular oppositions that require further grounding in more concrete determinations (I elaborate more fully this Hegelian mode of argument in section 2.2, below). Fundamentally, a view of value and value-form as }{\i internally interconnected}{ and mutually determined by an existent (capitalism) identifies Hegelian models as theories of social form, associated with an abstract-labour theory of value. \par \par At this point, it might well be asked how any evaluation of }{\i Capital}{ is possible? Given profound epistemological and methodological disagreements about the meaning and status of value concepts, to what sort of test might Marx\rquote s theory be subjected? Is it an analytic or logical-historical theor y concerned with theorising the implications of a natural trans-historical law of value, or a systematic dialectical theory concerned with theorising the internal connection between concepts applicable only to a particular social form? \par \par In arriving at a decision, we have only Marx\rquote s cursory and ambivalent remarks on method to go by. At the time of writing the 1857 draft }{\i Introduction}{ Marx seems to have agreed with Hegel\rquote s \lquote conceptual dialectic\rquote , arguing that the object of a scientific inquiry is to grasp the essence of the phenomenon of interest as a \lquote concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse\rquote (1857/1973, p.102). Hence, he concluded, \lquote the scientifically correct method\rquote is one in which \lquote abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought\rquote (p.101). Is it possible, then, to read the opening chapter as an attempt to ground abstract universal dualities (the first movement, contained in sections 1-2) in the more concrete structures of commodity exchange ( the second movement, contained in sections 3-4)? With this question in mind, the next section sets out criteria for evaluating }{\i Capital }{as a systematic dialectical theory. These criteria are derived from Hegel\rquote s (1812) }{\i Science of Logic }{. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161692}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162002}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169597}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927304}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927535} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987918}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153931}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154109}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155227}2.2 Hegel\rquote s Logic: Principles and Implications{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161692}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162002}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169597} {\*\bkmkend _Toc497927304}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927535}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987918}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153931}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154109}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155227} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Williams (1998) identifies two \lquote moments\rquote in Hegel\rquote s logical system of conceptual development. The first is a moment of inquiry into empirical perceptions of reality and existing theories of it: or, as Marx put it, \lquote the working-up of observation and conception into concepts\rquote (Marx, 1857/1973, p.101). Through this process of \lquote working-up\rquote the researcher arrives at an all-embracing abstraction determined by \lquote the interconnection of all the necessary moments of the totality\rquote (R euten and Williams, 1989, p.20). The second moment is one of presentation, proceeding in the reverse direction to grasp the abstract-universal starting point in its }{\i internal}{ (logical) interconnectedness, its concrete conditions of existence. The moment of presentation is not concerned with analysis, but with \lquote systematic interconnection, specification, synthesis, reconstruction and concretisation\'85 from the most abstract starting point (Williams, 1998, p.189). \par \par The first thing to note about the starting point of a systematic dialectical presentation is that it is a universal abstraction, yet determinate in that it }{\i presupposes}{ the totality of an empirical reality that has been interrogated in the moment of inquiry. The second point is that thinking can make nothing of the abstract universal notion except by opposing to it: (1) an abstract universal negation (what it is not), and (2) its concrete particularity. To take Hegel\rquote s example: the abstract universal \lquote animal\rquote is further determined only by thinking th rough its abstract negation as plant or mineral and its concrete particularity as dog and cat. Third, negation and particularity are brought into existence by applying opposing concepts to the empty abstraction, and in this very specific sense the \lquote doubling\rquote of concepts creates }{\i contradiction}{. Fourth, contradiction motivates transcendence of the abstract universal concept by demanding concrete grounds, or conditions of existence. The grounding moment \endash a movement of force, or }{\i tendency}{ \endash provides for the }{\i actual }{coming into being of the abstract \lquote identity of opposites\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989). Thus, the universal \lquote animal\rquote is grounded in the concrete determination of how precisely particular animals are }{\i different}{ and how they are }{\i connected}{. It is this \lquote unity in difference\rquote that the systematic dialectic seeks. \par \par At the start of the presentation, \lquote difference is still sunk in the unity, not yet set forth as different\rquote (Hegel, 1833, p.83). Opposed concepts are brought into being and united by the \lquote gradual t ranscendence of abstract determination towards concrete determination\rquote until \lquote the stage of a self-reproducing actual existence is reached\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.24). The systematic dialectic is thus best apprehended as \lquote within itself a circle in which the first is also the last and the last is also the first\rquote (Hegel, 1812, p.71). Indeed, the whole object of the presentation is to confirm what is first posited provisionally as }{\i possibility}{ and to determine this possibility as \lquote indeed actual, concrete, self-reproducing, or endogenous existence, which requires no external or exogenous determinants for its systematic reproduction\rquote (Reuten, 1993, p.93). If the method is applied to value theory, three crucial implications follow. \par \par First, the relation of causality to determination is complex and given}{\i systemically}{ rather than externally. Determinations given externally are contingent rather than necessary to the existent}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ For example, money is determined as necessary to capitalism but its form as gold or credit is contingent in the sense that the form taken by money does not change what capitalism essentially is (Reuten and Williams, 1989).}}}{. Moreover, the totality and its determinations are }{\i mutually constituted}{ such that: \lquote theory culminates in a stage that is true \ldblquote for itself\rdblquote , i.e., concretely and actually, then this shows that an earlier stage leading up to it must have been true \ldblquote in itself\rdblquote , i.e. abstractly and potentially\rquote (Smith, 1990, p.49). Causality is therefore established retrogressively: \lquote the beginning is, as such, already something derived\'85and there is no need to deprecate the fact that it may only be accepted }{\i provisionally}{ and }{\i hypothetically }{\rquote (Hegel 1812, p.841). The provisional character of the starting point \endash as an abstraction that }{\i results from }{ a process of empirical inquiry - will be confirmed by the capacity of logic to ground all related elements in the system of }{\i mutual determinations}{ that cause the existent to be what it }{\i essentially}{ is. Ultimately, value \lquote in its complete, finished form must make good the promise of a law of value\rquote (Arthur, 1997, p.33). \par \par The second implication of Hegel\rquote s system is that science alone determines its object, and comprehends it. In social science, the object of theory is to establish the mutable logic of social practices in a systematic form. Hegel\rquote s logic is a }{\i method}{ enabling this }{\i reconstruction}{ in thought of a \lquote real subject\rquote that \lquote retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before\rquote , but is knowable only as \lquote a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can\rquote (Marx, 1857/1973, p.101). As a method, the systematic dialectic need make no claim to perfect correspondence with \lquote reality\rquote , or to perfectly reflect \lquote real\rquote entities. T he systematic dialectical project is, in fact, far more modest in this respect than most Marxist theories with their ontological presuppositions and claims to directly represent capitalist reality. Claims to success are based, rather, on the theory \rquote s capacity to comprehend the relevant concrete phenomena (prices, profits, labour-time) of the reality to be explained, }{\i as mediated and reconstituted by the theory}{ . Since theory approaches reality at best circuitously, the systematic dialectical project is explicitly open-ended and can never be considered complete (Reuten, 1993). \par \par The third implication of Hegel\rquote s \lquote unity\rquote of ground and existence is that it does not allow for the isolation of essence and appearance within the analysis; in this it differs fundament ally from the linear (Ricardian) models introduced in the last section (2.2). In the Hegelian model, value is not comprehensible as an \lquote essence\rquote behind the phenomenal \lquote appearance\rquote of price, as most Marxists would have it. On the contrary, the concept of value first appears only as the abstract negation of an opposite abstract universal, use-value. The exchange relation then constitutes the ground, or first condition for the existence of value, by showing value that it cannot exist for itself but only as it appears in the concrete body of an equivalent commodity or - more concretely still - the form of a universal equivalent (money). Price, as the most concrete determination of money, cannot exist apart from value but necessarily contains within it the a ntecedent abstract moment: \lquote appearance shows nothing that is not in the essence, and in the essence there is nothing but what is manifested\rquote (Hegel, 1817; cited, Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.23). \par \par It is clear, then, that relative prices cannot be derived from value (or from \lquote labour-values\rquote ) as propositions are derived in an axiomatic or in a logical-historical analysis. Indeed, both Hegel and Marx explicitly reject the empiricist/materialist conflation of knowledge and reality constituted by an axiomatic identification of laws with constant conjunctions of events. The \lquote proof\rquote of the theory rests solely on the adequacy of the theoretical (systemic) grounding of the abstract starting point; that is, on the \lquote intrinsic merits\rquote of the presentation itself Reuten (1993). With these criteria in mind, the next section turns to Marx\rquote s (1867a) starting point: his exposition of the double character of commodities and labour, which takes place over the first two sections of his opening chapter in }{\i Capital 1}{. \par }\pard\plain \sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162003}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169598}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927305}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927536}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987919} \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153932}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154110}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155228}2.3 Abstract Labour: Analytic or Dialectic Abstraction {\*\bkmkend _Toc493162003}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169598}?{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927305}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927536}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987919}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153932}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154110}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155228} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The opening sentences of the first chapter of }{\i Capital}{ set the stage for Marx\rquote s (1867a) analysis of the double character of the commodity, upon which so much depends: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx284\tx357\adjustright {The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an \ldblquote immense collection of commodities\rdblquote ; the individual commodity appears as its elementary form. Our investigation therefore begins with the analysis of the commodity (Marx, 1867a, p.125). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright { \par From a Hegelian perspective, this paragraph suggests both the object of inquiry - }{\i capitalist}{ wealth - and its most abstract universal manifestation \endash the commodity. Yet, having suggested the determinate character of the commodity as a starting point for his inquiry into th e universal form of wealth in a particular type of society, Marx immediately suspends the presupposition and moves towards to a generalisation of commodities as \lquote use-values for others, social use-values\rquote (Marx, 1867a, p.131). By the end of the first secti on, what is established is that the commodity is a useful object produced specifically for exchange - such that its useful property (its use-value) is verified only when it is exchanged for use-values of a different type. Thus, the commodity is constitut ed in a very broad sense as an entity of }{\i double character}{: use-value (quality) and exchange-value (quantity). \par \par What has this duality to do with the }{\i commodity form}{ as an appearance of }{\i capitalist }{wealth? Marx does not address this important question, but emb arks upon a digression into the exchange relation and the question of what it is that enables diverse use-values to exchange in predictable proportions. It is in this context, that he first introduces value as a term for the relation of equivalence }{\i between}{ commodities \endash the \lquote common factor in the exchange relation\rquote (1867a, p.128). Here, the \lquote substance of value\rquote is what is common in diverse commodities after the particular useful property (use-value) of the commodity is discarded. Since nothing is left but the property of being products of labour, Marx concludes that \lquote congealed quantities of homogenous human labour\rquote give the exchange relation its \lquote phantom-like objectivity\rquote (p.128). In order that particular types of labour should be considered \lquote equal human labour\rquote , however, a similar abstraction must be made from the heterogeneous characteristics of particular \lquote concrete\rquote types of labour. \par \par Thus, abstract labour makes a first appearance in }{\i Capital}{ as a term used to describe \lquote homogenous\rquote labour, constituted as an abstraction from \lquote concrete\rquote particularity. What is common to labour once its heterogeneous characteristics are discarded is \lquote human labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure\rquote , and in aggregate this constitutes the total capac ity to labour, or \lquote total labour power of society\rquote (Marx, 1867a, p.128-129). Although, in particular instances, diverse labours are performed with different levels of intensity and skill, each unit of abstract labour-power is the \lquote same as any other, to the extent that it has the character of a socially average unit of labour-power and acts as such\rquote (p.129). Given this simplification, the value of any commodity is measured by the average amount of labour time required to produce that particular commodity with a socially given level of skill and technology. \lquote What exclusively determines the magnitude of value of any article is therefore the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production\rquote (p.129). \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {The first point to note about this derivation of the double character of labour is that Marx arrives at the concept of abstract labour by way of a reductive abstraction from the heterogenous characteristics of material use-values and the useful labour that produces them : \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only one property remains, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour has already been transformed in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use-value, we abstract also from t he material constituents and forms which make it a use-value\'85 .The useful character of the kinds of labour embodied in them also disappears; this in turn entails the disappearance of the different concrete forms of labour. They can no longer be distinguish ed, but are altogether reduced to the same kind of labour, human labour in the abstract (Marx, 1867a, p.128). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par The remarkable thing about this passage, from a Hegelian point of view, is that the double character of labour as abstract and concrete is }{\i not}{ constituted as a \lquote unity in difference\rquote , presupposing a specific totality (capitalist commodity production). First, concrete-labour is }{\i not}{ posited as an abstract universal opposed to abstract-labour, but as particular labour \lquote transformed\rquote into abstract labou r, apparently in the mind of the researcher. Second, there is no reference to the market - thus, no reference to the exchange relation as constituting the first condition of existence of abstract-labour. If a concept of social abstraction is implicit in the derivation (in our hands?) it is only because an exchange relation is already inherent in Marx\rquote s description of commodities as \lquote use-values for others\rquote . Given the social nature of the commodity, it is curious that Marx delays any explicit discussion of the }{\i activity}{ of exchange as a universal ground for his abstract-labour/concrete-labour opposition. When he does so, however, the difference with the previous passage is striking: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {But the }{\i act }{of equating tailoring with weaving reduces the former to what is really equal in the two kinds of labour, to the characteristic they have in common of being human labour. This is a roundabout way of saying that weaving too, }{\i in so far as it weaves value}{ , has nothing to distinguish it from tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. }{\i It is only the expression of equivalence between different sorts of commodities which brings to view the specific character of value-creating labour}{ , by actually reducing the different kinds of commodity to their common quality of being human labour in general (Marx, 1867a, p.142; my italics). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Here the concept of abstract-labour is clearly given not as a }{\i property of}{ commodities, but as a }{\i relation between}{ commodities arising as the result of a real social practice - the }{\i act}{ of exchanging commodities. The different types of physiological energy expended on weaving and tailoring are abstract only \lquote in so far as they create value\rquote , and value is a universal \lquote expression of equivalence\rquote or relation between commodities. How are we to understand this passage in relation to the last? Is abstract-labour intended to be a genus in a hierarchy, a reductive (mental) generalisation from particular types of physiological energy expended in productive activity? Or, is it intended to refer to the result of a social practice that requires for its existence and perpetuation an actual disregard for use-values affected by a practice of bringing products of labour (and labour itself) into a form of equivalence on the market \endash as values? The point is that abstract labour cannot be both of these things: it cannot be at the same time an indeterminate category of productive activity in general }{\i and}{ a determinate category of a particular system of production for exchange. As early as 1928, Isaak Rubin made this important observation: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { One of two things is possible: if abstract labour is an expenditure of human energy in physiological form, then value also has a reified-material character. Or value is a social phenomenon, and then abstract labour must also be understood as a social phenomenon connected with a determined social form of production. It is not possible to reconcile a physiological concept of abstract labour with the historical character of the value that it creates. The physiological expendi ture of energy as such is the same for all epochs and, one might say, this energy created value in all epochs. We arrive at the crudest interpretation of the theory of value, one that sharply contradicts Marx\rquote s theory (Rubin, 1928/1972, p.135). \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Rubin (1928/1972) was certainly correct to point out that the existence of value has a \lquote purely social reality\rquote for Marx, in that it makes an objective appearance only in the }{\i relation}{ of commodity to commodity and does not therefore include a single atom of matter. His statement that a physiological reading \lquote contradicts\rquote Marx is much more doubtful however. Marx (1867a) not only derives value as \lquote merely congealed quantities of human labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure\rquote (p.128), but he goes on to introduce labour-power (the capacity to perform labour) as a simplifying assumption. Further, he justifies this purely by analytic convenience: \lquote we shall henceforth view every form of labour-power directly as simple labour-power; by this we shall simply be saving ourselves the trouble of making the reduction\rquote (Marx, 1867a, p.135). Thus, the magnitude of value comes to depend only on the average quantity of abstract labour \lquote socially necessary\rquote to produce a commodity, given some average level of skill and technology. \par \par The extent to which this is important depends not only on the theoretical issue of whether value can exist prior to exchange (as labour embodied in particular commodities), but also on the empirical issue of how the theory can be use fully applied to a competitive money economy (Reuten, 1993). In Reuten\rquote s view, any attempt to add up concrete (pre-market) labour hours must confront the actual discounting to simple labour that Marx sought to avoid. Even if socially necessary labour tim e is taken as an immanent measure of embodied abstract-labour and the simplification avoided, there is still a requirement to explain why it is that socially necessary labour must itself appear in money form. The latter question constitutes Marx\rquote s critical challenge to the classics; the issue, then, is how well he answers it (Backhaus, 1969/1980). \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162004}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169599}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927306}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927537}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987920} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153933}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154111}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155229}2.4 Value-Form{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162004}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169599} and Commodity Fetishism{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927306}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927537}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987920} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498153933}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154111}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155229} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Marx\rquote s answer to the \lquote riddle\rquote of money is presented in the third section of his opening chapter. For the first German edition of }{\i Capital }{, Marx wrote a special Appendix (1867b) on the \lquote The Value-Form\rquote , for \endash he explains to Engels \endash \lquote the matter is too decisive for the whole book\rquote (cited Arthur, 1979b, p.69). In my view, the decisive character of the value-form lies in the conceptual movement it inaugurates - from the double character of commodities and labour to their determination by social form. In a crucial passage at the start of the third section Marx sets out to make the transition, positing the commodity as a dual ity of \lquote natural form and value form\rquote (Marx, 1867a, p.138). Introducing the argument, Marx declares enigmatically: \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri575\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous object ivity of commodities as physical objects. We may twist and turn a single commodity as we wish; it remains impossible to grasp it as a thing possessing value. However, let us remember that commodities possess an objective character as values only insofar as they are all expressions of an identical social substance, human labour, that their objective character as values is therefore purely social. From this it follows self-evidently that it can only appear in the social relation between commodity and comm odity (Marx, 1867a, p.138-9). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par What does this passage mean? Firstly, Marx further elucidates the double character of the commodity: (1) it has a material \lquote natural\rquote existence (objectively, it is a useful object) and (2) it has a non-material \lquote social\rquote existe nce (objectively it is a value). This is clearly an elaboration of the conceptual use-value/value distinction; the material properties of the commodity are embodied in it and constitute its useful quality, yet it cannot be grasped }{\i in itself}{ as a thing possessing value. Secondly, diverse commodities are objectively commensurable \endash have value \endash only in so far as they express a social phenomenon \endash namely, the equalisation of human labour. Moreover, the equalisation is affected not in production but exchange, when the diverse labours of private dissociated producers are verified as a relation between commodities. It follows \lquote self-evidently \rquote that }{\i value is not a physiological substance}{ but a \lquote purely social\rquote concept, referring to the }{\i historically specific}{ }{\i form}{ that social labour takes when its products are exchanged against one another. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {At first sight, this passage appears to verify Rubin\rquote s (1928/1972) \lquote social\rquote interpretation of the concept of abstract labour as the social form that private labour assumes when commodities are exchanged. On this reading, Marx explicates the }{\i necessity}{ that the value of a commodity be represented in the bodily form of an equivalent commodity: \lquote human labour creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its coagulated state, in objective form\rquote (Marx, 1867a, p.142, also p.149). The notion that human labour is value only when it takes on an objective (equivalent) form underwrites Marx\rquote s derivation of money as the universal equivalent commodity against which all oth er commodities exchange. This leads to an important argument, introduced in the fourth section: namely that in a system of generalised production for exchange, a \lquote reification\rquote takes place such that the social character of the relationship between private producers appears inverted as a monetary relationship between the objects they independently produce. This inversion is a \lquote social\rquote phenomenon specific to the \lquote bourgeois mode of production\rquote , as Marx argues: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri567\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {The value-form of the product of labour is the m ost abstract, but also the most universal form of the bourgeois mode of production; by that fact it stamps the bourgeois mode of production as a particular kind of social production of a historical and transitory character. If then we make the mistake of treating it as the eternal natural form of social production we necessarily overlook the specificity of the value-form, and consequently of the commodity form together with its further developments, the money form, the capital form, etc (Marx, 1867a, fn.3 4, p.174). \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri565\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {In this footnote, and elsewhere in this section on commodity fetishism, Marx denounces the classical political economists for their failure to comprehend the \lquote specificity of the value form\rquote as a historically unique form of social domination over value content. Where value and its measurement (in labour time) appear in classical value theory with \lquote self-evident and nature-imposed necessity\rquote as economic \lquote laws\rquote or external determinations relevant to any form of productive activity, these \lquote formulas\rquote are, for Marx, but ideological manifestations of the social form itself (Marx, 1967a, p.175). The secret of the structure and development of the capitalist economy is therefore to be found in the material abstraction of commodity exchange, and the inver ted reality of value-forms that it creates. In other words, \lquote the entire system has to be grasped (within limits yet to be specified) as form-determined\rquote (Arthur, 1993, p.66). \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Is this \lquote social\rquote interpretation of Marx\rquote s value-form theory convincing? One difficulty is that Marx retains a reference to value as labour in its \lquote coagulated state\rquote thereby creating a link to the classical theories that he explicitly criticises. The \lquote objective form\rquote into which socially equalised \lquote human labour\rquote necessarily \lquote coagulates\rquote might then be interpreted as a physiological labour embodiment (in the body of a particular commodity, or universally in the money commodity) that takes place independently of any monetary abstraction from concrete-labour in exchange. A physiolo gical interpretation of \lquote social equalisation\rquote implies a Ricardian model of reification, in which the \lquote relation of things\rquote is constituted as a form of \lquote appearance\rquote }{\i autonomous}{ of the \lquote real\rquote social relations hidden behind it. In other words, labour as \lquote essence is defined, in contrast to the form of appearance, in a formal, logical way as the universal, typical and principal\rquote (Backhaus, 1969/1980, p.101). \par \par Given Marx\rquote s retention of physiological references, Backhaus concludes that the social mediation implied by Marx\rquote s theory of value-form \lquote can only be construed as a pseudo-dialectical movement of pseudo-dialectical contradiction \rquote (p.101). The main point is that Marx fails to explicate the double character of labour as the }{\i essential }{opposition of capitalist production, grounded in the }{\i internal social structures}{ that constitute labour in this double form. Thus, the value-form appears not as an abstract-universal \lquote mode of association\rquote determining the social form of private productive activity in capitalism, but more ambiguously as a theory of \lquote commodity money\rquote derived from the exchange relation. \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {\fs20 \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927307}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927538}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987921}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153934}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154112} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155230}Conclusion{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927307}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927538}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987921}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153934}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154112}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155230} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\ri-24\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\tx8198\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Returning to the preliminary question posed in this chapter: is Marx\rquote s abstract-labour theory of value a clarification and extension of the classical \lquote labour-embodied\rquote theory of value, or is it a refutation of it? The textual analysis presented here confirms that Marx is nowhere explicit as to the }{\i nature}{ and }{\i extent}{ of his break with the classics. Especially problematic is Marx\rquote s (1867a) retention of abstract labour as the \lquote substance\rquote of value, viewed ontologically as a real property of commodities, motivating the exposition towards a \lquote natural\rquote trans-historical theory of value. Indeed, the whole of the opening chapter is replete with naturalistic references to value as \lquote congealed quantities of [abstract] labour\rquote or labour in a \lquote coagulated state\rquote , suggesting that \lquote abstract-labour\rquote and \lquote embodied-labour\rquote are not intended to be opposites in Marx\rquote s value theory. The status of the \lquote commodity\rquote as an all-embracin g concept for capitalist production is therefore ambiguous and the theory of commodity fetishism obscure, based apparently on a separation of the form of appearance of things from its genesis in the social relations that give rise to it. In this regard, Marx\rquote s first chapter seems to accord better with the Ricardian model of essence existing }{\i autonomously}{ of its appearance than it accords with Hegel\rquote s conceptual }{\i unity}{ of essence and ground; the latter requiring that abstract universals are validated by the more concrete determinations that give rise to them. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri-24\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\tx8198\adjustright {On the other hand, Marx claimed in his 1873 }{\i Postface}{ to the second German edition of }{\i Capital}{, to have utilised a variation of Hegel\rquote s method to distinguish between the social (value) and material (us e-value) characteristics of the commodity-form, so introducing into political economy a unique critique of classical value theory. In this sense, I think that it is justifiable to ask how well the conceptual development of concepts in }{\i Capital}{ accords with criteria derived from Hegel\rquote s (1812) }{\i Science of Logic}{. Indeed, good reasons for judging the whole of }{\i Capital}{ a systematic dialectical work have been summarised by Smith (1993, 1998) and by Arthur (1998b, 2000). Here, I have not set out to dispute their conclusions, but only to establish some of the difficulties involved in the interpretation of Marx\rquote s value concepts as universal abstractions at the start of a systematic dialectical exposition. \par \par The main difficulty in the conceptual development of the opening chapter lies in the reductive character of Marx\rquote s core concepts. Most crucially, abstract-labour is first derived as a generalisation from concrete particularity. This accords better with an analytic derivation of concepts than it does with the co ntradictory (abstract universal) oppositions that motivate the Hegelian mode of argument. Nevertheless, Marx\rquote s theory of value-form does set out a rudimentary theory of the social (form) determination of the twofold character of entities and processes in capitalism. It also suggests the methodological direction required for a systematic dialectical development of that theory (see chapter 4, below). Before turning to this development, the next chapter explores the lasting effects of Marx\rquote s attempt to synthesise classical value theory and Hegelian form theory: a paradigmatic splitting of the Marxian abstract-labour-embodied theory of value into a \lquote technical\rquote and a \lquote social\rquote paradigm.{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438966} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701588}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078477}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078926}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079269}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079535}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161210}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161293}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161331}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161485} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161618}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161696}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162006}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169600}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927308}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927539}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987922} \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153935}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154113}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155231}3. Two Paradigms, Two Problems {\*\bkmkend _Toc492438966}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701588}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078477}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078926}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079269}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079535}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161210}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161293}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161331} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161485}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161618}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161696}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162006}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169600}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927308}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927539}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987922}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153935} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498154113}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155231} \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par The first two sections of this chapter examine two distinct Marxian paradigms derived from abstract-labour-embodied interpretations of }{\i Capital}{: the \lquote technical\rquote and the \lquote social\rquote paradigm (cf. de Vroey, 1982). The value theories arising from this splitting of Marxian theory are discussed with reference to two core problems. Firstly, what type of labour is socially equal abstract labour: is it a }{\i substance}{ embodied in commodities prior to exchange, or is it a }{\i form}{ that social labour assumes when human activity takes the value-form and is brought under the aspect of time? Secondly, what is the appropriate measure of abstract labour: is it labour time, or money? These questions ultimately return to the core question of whether \endash in a capitalist economy - value can be said to have any }{\i meaningful}{ existence prior to exchange. The third section answers the question in the negative. \par \par Throughout the chapter, I aim to show that paradigmatic splits within Marxism are explicitly related to the way in which the interconnection of value and money is theorised within the two models of essence and appearance described in the last chapter (section 2.1). Both \lquote technical\rquote and \lquote social\rquote interpretations tend to adopt an ontological (Ricardian) approach to value and its measurement, so that paradigmatic diffe rences turn primarily on alternative conceptions of the relation of production to exchange in the circuit of capital (Clarke, 1980). Conceptual dialectical (Hegelian) approaches occupy a minority position within the social paradigm and are distinguished from all other positions by their rejection of labour-embodied value theory and by an explicit attempt to develop Marxian categories to accord with Hegel\rquote s logical principles. Since the current chapter is concerned with }{\i interpretations}{ of Marx\rquote s (1867a) value theory rather than }{\i reconstructions}{ of it, conceptual dialectical approaches are not discussed here but in the next chapter.}{\fs32 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154430}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155195}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165906}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165999}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166063} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166127}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166191}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166255}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166319}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166439}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166863}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167466}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167602}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167861} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167925}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168242}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168356}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168920}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169427}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169607}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169835}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169918}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170099} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170228}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170295}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170523}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170859}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171481}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171590}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171701}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171768}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171835} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171901}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171967}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172378}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172444}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172831}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172897}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173295}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173435}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491175110} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491176079}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177108}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177439}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177662}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177986}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178091}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178275}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178458}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178710} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438967}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701589}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078478}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078927}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079270}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079536}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161211}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161294}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161332} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161486}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161619}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161697}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162007}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169601}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927309}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927540}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987923}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153936} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154114}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155232}3.1{\*\bkmkend _Toc491154430}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155195}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165906}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165999}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166063}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166127}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166191} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491166255}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166319}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166439}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166863}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167466}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167602}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167861}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167925}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168242} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491168356}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168920}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169427}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169607}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169835}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169918}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170099}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170228}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170295} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491170523}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170859}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171481}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171590}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171701}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171768}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171835}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171901}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171967} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491172378}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172444}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172831}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172897}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173295}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173435}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491175110}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491176079}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177108} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491177439}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177662}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177986}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178091}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178275}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178458}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178710} The Technical Paradigm{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438967} {\*\bkmkend _Toc492701589}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078478}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078927}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079270}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079536}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161211}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161294}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161332}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161486} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161619}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161697}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162007}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169601}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927309}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927540}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987923}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153936}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154114} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498155232} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Rubin\rquote s (1928/1972) insight into the social character of abstract labour lay dormant in the liter ature for almost fifty years. During this time, physiological interpretations of the concept dominated studies of Marx\rquote s }{\i Capital}{. Sweezy (1946) proposes, for example, that abstract labour is \lquote equivalent to \ldblquote labour in general\rdblquote ; it is what is common to all productive human activity\rquote (p.30). Although this conflation of physiological labour and abstract labour can be traced to Marx\rquote s first chapter, it eliminates by assumption any determining role for the value-form in the constitution of value; hence, money doesn\rquote t matter, but is only a veil over the exploitation of labour. This section examines the implications of this reading of Marxian value theory in two influential views of the economy seen as a system of technical production: the \lquote orthodox\rquote view (e.g. Dobb, 1940; Meek, 1956; Sweezy, 1946) and the \lquote Sraffian\rquote view (e.g. Lippi, 1980; Steedman, 1977). \par \par \tab }{\fs20 THE ORTHODOX VIEW \par }{Arthur (1997) traces the origins of the \lquote orthodox\rquote view to an epistemological standpoint linking conceptual development to historical development, in such a way that the former is taken to be a \lquote corrected reflection\rquote of the latter. What results is a logical-historical methodology, according to which Marx begins the first volume of }{\i Capital }{by describing a stage of \lquote simple commodity production\rquote in which value attains its \lquote classical form \rquote , then goes on to describe capitalist production as a \lquote secondary\rquote derivative form of value production}{\cs22\f6\fs28\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ Marx\rquote s (1857/1973) statements on method in the draft }{\i Introduction}{ contradict Engels\rquote s linking of Hegel\rquote s systematic and historical dialectics: \lquote It would therefore be unfeasible and wrong to let the economic categories follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive. Their sequence is determined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern bourgeois society\rquote (p.107). Marx\rquote s demand that economic categories must articulate only the essential elements of an }{\i existing system}{ flatly contradicts a logical-historical reading of conceptual development. He states clearly that: \lquote In the succession of the economic categories, as in any other historical social science, it must not be forgotten that their subject \endash here modern bourgeois society \endash is always what is given, in the head as well as in reality\'85\rquote (p.106). According to Marx, the object of value theory is to explicate the inner connections of the particular system of production for exchange in which value relations fully obtain.}}}{. Hence, Marx\rquote s \lquote law of value\rquote is a \lquote natural law\rquote which \lquote applies universally\rquote - up until the time when it is modified \lquote by the onset of the capitalist form of production\rquote (Engels, 1894a, p.103; 1894b, p.1037). Given this linear view of historical processes, the role of Marxian value theory is taken to be an investigation of the general law of value, and of its capitalist modifications. \par \par The idea that values might play a determining role in the elucidation of the general laws governing historical development has permitted a great variety of labour-embodied interpretations holding to some variant of logical-his torical methodology. In extreme \lquote historicist\rquote versions, labour is simply collapsed into value, as in Mandel\rquote s (1990) bald statement that \lquote labour is value\rquote ; indeed, Mandel posits several historical modes of production in which the allocation of labour is determined by value. Sweezy (1946), in contrast, favours logical aspects of the method and foists on Marx a procedure of \lquote successive approximation \rquote , where the structure of }{\i Capital}{ is seen to provide a series of analytic models, each a more complex approximation to capitalist reality than the last. In these models, value is reduced to an axiom in \lquote a theory of general equilibrium developed in the first instance with reference to simple commodity production and later on adapted to capitalism\rquote (Sweezy, 1946, p.53). Labour embodied in commodities is \lquote conserved\rquote within these modifications, irrespective of whether they are proposed to capture historical processes, or to be a stage in logical approximation to reality. \par \par Locating value in the natural/physical dimension constitutes Marx\rquote s central problem as one of labour allocation in any society where there is a division of labour and a high \lquote degree of labour mobility\rquote (Sweezy, 1946, pp.31-34). A reductive abstraction from heterogeneous concrete labour is seen to be necessitated by the existence of an \lquote aggregate social labour force which is capable of transference from one use to another in accordance with social needs\rquote (p.32). In this vein, Sweezy argues that the value of a particular commodity is a share of \lquote materialised abstract labour \rquote expended by societies total labour force: \lquote a part of the total wealth-producing activity of society\rquote (p.33). As a proportion of social labour, the abstract labour embodied in a commodity is \lquote inevitably implied in the very notion of a total labour force available to society\rquote (p.31). From a different perspective, Steedman (1977, p.38) provides a similar argument for abstract labour as a \lquote social average\rquote derived from adding up and averaging out the labour productivity of different sectors of the economy to arrive at the vector of \lquote labour-values\rquote for different commodities. \par \par The immediate implication of conflating physiological labour and abstract-labour is that the \lquote substance of value\rquote must be theorised at the concrete-physical dimensi on as a pre-market phenomenon where concrete heterogeneous types of labour are reduced to homogenous quantities of abstract-labour embodied in commodities in the form of labour-time. That is, quantities and qualities of time - such as the intensity and d uration of work - are taken to be the common elements in diverse expenditures of energy, constituting commodities as values. If a measure of duration is used, particular labours (for simplification, }{\i i}{ and }{\i j}{ ) might be considered in terms of respective concrete hours of labour expended in production (L}{\i\sub i}{ and L}{\i\sub j}{) and summed: L}{\i\sub i}{ + L}{\i\sub j}{ = L, where (L) is the total labour expended in an economy, \lquote materialised abstract labour\rquote . Whether values are realised in money-form in actual exchange is irrelevant to the actual creation of value since value clearly pre-exists the market as a proportion of expended labour. \par \par Given that physiological abstract-labour is susceptible to measurement in time units, which I dispute, it is a short step to say that the labour values derived in volume one of }{\i Capital}{ are intended as an }{\i approximation}{ to the prices and profits discussed in volume three (Sweezy, 1946, p.33). Value theory then becomes the \lquote unifying quantitative principle\rquote enabling economists to make \lquote postulates in terms of the general equilibrium of the economic system\rquote (Dobb, 1940, p.5), with the rate of profit also interpreted as a ratio among labour embodied magnitudes (Meek, 1956). Simple though this is, the concrete-labour embodied theory has inherent difficulties concerning the }{\i actuality}{ of value, both at the empirical level, and theoretically. Firstly, an argument that value magnitudes exist before the determination of exchange ratios is obliged to trace the relationship between \ldblquote labour-values\rquote and \lquote prices of production\rquote }{\cs22\f6\fs28\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ In Sweezy\rquote s model, there is a logical priority of labour-values over prices of production. To determine these prices it is necessary to know the average \lquote value\rquote rate of profit; that is, the ratio of total surplus labour over the sum of constant and variable capital advanced in the whole economy, both calculated in labour-embodied terms. This ratio is then appl ied to the value of the capital advanced in each industry, resulting in an estimation in prices of production of the output of each sector (1946, pp.109-130).}}}{ once competition (and a general rate of profit) is introduced into the model. Secondly, it must answer to the question of how the \lquote labour-values\rquote presupposed axiomatically at the start of the analysis can be operationalised and }{\i measured}{ independently of the market. \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par The first problem \endash concerning the divergence of \lquote labour-values\rquote and \lquote prices of production\rquote given a general rate of profit - has received a great deal of attention in the economics literature under the rubric of the \lquote transformation problem\rquote . This problem concerns the structural relationship between Marx\rquote s value analysis in the first volume of }{\i Capital}{ and his derivation of \lquote prices of production\rquote in the third volume, and is therefore outside the scope of this dissertation}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ The main objection is that it is not possible to have a simultaneous realisation of Marx\rquote s two equalities \endash sum of values and sum of prices, and sum of surplus values and sum of profits. Hence, the relationship between exploitation of workers and entrepreneurial profits is unclear. There have been a great number of solutions proposed to this \lquote tran sformation problem\rquote ; for contemporary vindication of the procedure, the interested reader is referred to the New Solutions offered by Foley (1982) and the more orthodox conclusions offered by Moseley (1993a). Despite differences between these writers, a c ommon theme is that \lquote exchange values\rquote and \lquote prices of production\rquote are alternative rules of exchange, with the former privileged as a first approximation to prices. Marxists who reject labour-embodied interpretations of Marx \rquote s value theory generally reject both the \lquote problem\rquote and its \lquote solution\rquote on the grounds that a \lquote mathematical relationship between the magnitudes hardly makes sense\rquote (Smith, 1990, p.171). Although I do not elaborate here upon the transformation problem, the dissertation indirectly supports Smith\rquote s view.}}}{. Here, I focus on the second problem, which has to do with Marx\rquote \par \tab }{\fs20 ISAAK RUBIN: PRIVATE AND SOCIAL LABOUR \par }{In a series of scholarly essays and analyses of Marx\rquote s published texts and unpublished drafts, Rubin (1928/1972) undertook an extensive refutation of physiological interpretations of abstract labour and the associated interpretation of Marxian value theory as a \lquote natural\rquote law of labour distribution, or price determination. In the process, he introduced into the literature a critical and subsequently influential distinction, that between private and social labour. \par \par Rubin\rquote s (1928/1978) main argument was based on the insight that private labour cannot be immediately social labour in an economy where production and consumption are separated and organised i nto independent individual units. In such an economy, the problem of social cohesion is such that one cannot conceive of the labour embodied in commodities as }{\i socially necessary}{ in isolation from the exchange process. Private labour is validated as socially necessary only if: (1) it produces the average number of commodities typically produced in an hour in a particular industry (a \lquote technical\rquote production criterion), and (2) the labour expended must produce a quantity of commodities exactly equal to social needs (an exchange criterion). If either condition fails, then the \lquote ideal\rquote labour-value of a commodity will not be equal to its \lquote actual\rquote value, reflected in price. Rubin (1927/1978) explored this dialectic of production and exchange (of value and its money form) as the essence of Marx\rquote s double characterisation of labour: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {The labour of a commodity producer is directly private and concrete labour, but together with this it acquires an additional \lquote ideal\rquote or \lquote latent\rquote characteristic as abstract universal and social labour. Marx was always amused by the Utopians who dreamed of the disappearance of money and believed in the dogma that \ldblquote the private labour of a private individual contained in (a commodity) is immediately social labour\rdblquote (Rubin, 1927/1978, pp.124-2). \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri-24\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Rubin (1927/1978) concluded that: \lquote Abstract labour and value are created or \ldblquote come about\rdblquote , \ldblquote become\rdblquote in the process of direct production\'85and are only realised in the process of exchange\rquote when commodities are traded for money (p.125). The important poin t is that private labour is validated as social labour only when the commodity is sold. From this perspective, the Marxian theory of value cannot be a production theory since, in the absence of sale, no value is realised. On the other hand, it is not a circulation theory, since the magnitude of value realised depends upon the average technical conditions of production (and the average level of skill) prevailing in an industry at the time of exchange. \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {The immediate impact of Rubin\rquote s focus on the role of money in value theory was to enlarge the scope of the debate on Marxian value theory, raising the crucial question of the order of determination in a capitalist economy. De Vroey (1982) argues, for example, that \lquote exchange creates value, but production determines its magnitude\rquote (p.40). Elson (1979) on the other hand holds onto a production theory \endash a value theory of labour allocation \endash in which value has both an \lquote immanent\rquote measure in labour hours and an \lquote external\rquote measure in money. Himmelweit and Mohun (1981/1994) hold to an intermediate position in that the market \lquote carries on as }{\i a real process}{ the commensuration of the products of labour under commodity production\rquote (p.158). What is common to all of these theories, is an argument that the mutual interdep endence of production and exchange within the circuit of capital denies the validity of any axiomatic derivation of price from concrete hours of labour expended in producing a commodity. Given a dynamic process in which each firm competes to capture extr a profits through revolutions in production there is, in fact, no reason why the labour embodied \lquote ideally\rquote in any particular commodity should be realised \lquote actually\rquote in its price (Fine, 1988). Equilibrium theorising must therefore be eschewed; the nature of capitalism is such that the \lquote object of the value-founded theory of price is permanently impeded by the working of a diachronic logic which irreversibly modifies these norms\rquote (de Vroey, 1982, p.41). \par \par Rubin\rquote s (1928/1972) distinction between private-concrete labour and abstract-social labour has been seen by some writers as a conflation of Marx\rquote s categories of abstract and social labour (Likitkijsomboon, 1995). This is incorrect; abstract-labour is not, for Rubin, immediately social labour (measured in money), but embodied labour (measured in labour time, but realised in exchange). What Rubin \rquote s distinction does imply is a theorisation of circulation not as a mere stage in the analysis of production, but as integral both to the realisation of value and to }{\i reproduction}{ , itself the result of two exchanges (of money capital for labour power and of commodity capital for money). In the circuit of capital, value and price exist in \lquote a co-constitutive relationship\rquote such that \lquote socially necessary labour time is the }{\i immanent}{ measure of value, but price is its necessary and }{\i only}{ objective expression (Murray, 1993, p.50). In short, the necessity that abstract labour is validated as social labour precludes the adding up of concrete pre-market labour times - the aggregati on suggested by Sweezy (1946, p.33) - or the adding up of vectors \endash the aggregation in Sraffian-Marxist theories (eg Steedman, 1977). \par \par In sum, where the technological paradigm sees abstract-labour as a reduction from concrete particularity and related to the problem of aggregation or commensurability, the social paradigm sees abstract-labour as a \lquote real abstraction\rquote or an \lquote abstraction in practice\rquote brought about only through the process of exchanging commodities in the market. Although this allows a role for money in the realisation of value it does not imply \endash as some writers have argued - that money is \lquote the sole measure of abstract labour: that labour only becomes abstract in the act of exchange between the commodity and money\rquote (Gleicher, 1983/1994, p.175 ). Most of the writers identified by Gleicher as belonging to the \lquote Rubin school\rquote are, in fact, unequivocal defenders of Marx\rquote s abstract-labour-embodied theory of value, and Rubin maintains that quantities of abstract-labour, measured in time, causally det ermines the exchange ratios of commodities (Eldred, 1984). The shift to a social paradigm does not, therefore, entail an abandonment of production as the moment of value-creation, so much as it entails an attempt to integrate this moment more effectively within the circuit of capital as a whole. \par \par \tab }{\fs20 THE ITALIAN DEBATE \par }{A second development within the social paradigm also holds to an abstract-labour embodied interpretation of value while attempting to develop the monetary side of Marx\rquote s value theory (see Bellofiore, 1989; Bellofiore and Finelli, 1998). This \lquote monetary\rquote interpretation derives from Colletti\rquote s (1972) view of the abstraction affected in the market - not as an abstraction from the concrete objectivity of labour, but as an alienation of the subjectivity of individuals: \lquote abstract labour is alienated labour, labour separated or estranged with respect to man himself\rquote (p.86). From this perspective, the essential feature of commodity exchange is that it transforms human capacities into \lquote a congealation of labour which is }{\i value}{, turning it into a distinct entity, an entity which is not only independent of man, but also dominates him\rquote (p.87). \par \par The complexities of Colletti\rquote s argument, explored in Bellofiore\rquote s (1999) review of the Italian debate, are beyond the scope of this analysis. Here it is sufficient to point out that Colletti\rquote s interpretation of Marx\rquote s value theory as a theory of fetishism retains the Ricardian essence and appearance model, to the extent that value is assumed to have an }{\i autonomous}{ exis tence determining the (alienated) character of productive activity in capitalism. In this respect, it is subject to the critique advanced by Backhaus (1969/1980): namely, that severing the essential interconnectedness of form and essence renders the \lquote phenomenon of reification unfathomable\rquote (pp.101-4). Colletti certainly recognises the problematic character of a value theory of alienation: \lquote I cannot yet state whether the idea of an inverted reality is compatible with a social science\rquote (cited Bellofiore, 1999, p.40). In the 1970s Napoleoni sought to resolve this difficulty by suggesting that abstract-labour-embodied is value \lquote first regarded as activity, and afterwards as its product or result\rquote (Napoleoni, 1975; cited Bellofiore, 1999, p.48). \par \par Napoleoni\rquote s argument is traced out by Bellofiore (1999): (1) commodities are \lquote ideal\rquote money before exchange; (2) \lquote actual\rquote money is the necessary phenomenal form of an }{\i immanent}{ measure of value as embodied labour time; (3) the transition from \lquote ideal\rquote money in production to \lquote actual\rquote money in exchange cannot be assumed; (4) labour-power systematically produces money only when it takes the wage-form, and this entails the separation of workers from means of production; (5) when the technical labour process is fully subsumed under the valorisation process (the process of increasing value), objectified abstract-labour embodied in technical inputs (Marx\rquote s constant capital) dominates the living labour of the worker (Marx\rquote s variable capital) and extracts surplus value from it; (6) the }{\i centre}{ of the valorisation process is this }{\i real }{and immediate process of production, and it is here that living labour is alienated as value. This }{\i real hypostatisation}{ (process of substantive creativity) is behind the reification of human relations in the capitalist system of production for exchange. \par \par The modern \lquote monetary\rquote theory emerging from the Italian debate is an extremely rich and sophisticated attempt to retain Marx\rquote s abstract-labour-embodied value theory while, at the same time, emphasising th e crucial role played by money (and the exchange relation) in constituting value as \lquote actual\rquote in a capitalist economy. The interconnectedness of exchange and production is conceptualised, within this theory, as a relationship between \lquote potential\rquote value/abstract-labour created in production and measurable (in principle) in labour time, and \lquote actual\rquote value/abstract labour that comes into existence only when commodities are exchanged for money (Bellofiore, 1989; 1999). Through this distinction between potential and actual abstract-labour/value, the privileging of production is maintained since the \lquote alienation-abstraction of objectified labour arising from exchange is posited by the more fundamental abstraction-alienation of living labour in the production process\rquote (Bellofiore and Finelli, 1998, p.53). In other words, money and capital are theorised in terms of two relationships with labour: (1) the (quantitative) market driven exchange of labour-power for wages, and (2) the (qualitative) production driven subord ination of living labour to its quantitative aspect, the expansion of value. \par \par At the centre of these twin relationships is the domination of capital over labour. The crucial point is that abstract-labour, although \lquote actual\rquote only in exchange, is derived not from the exchange relation, but as a \lquote consequence\'85 of the subjection to capital of wage workers\rquote living labour\rquote (Bellofiori and Finelli, 1998, p.54). Hence, the human capacity to labour (labour-power) is sold on the market for a quantity of money (wages) , but this exchange of labour-power for wages itself }{\i presupposes}{ the existence of an exploitative production process subordinating living labour under its quantitative aspect (the production of value). This constitutes value as more than a regulator of ci rculation or labour allocation; it is the autonomous determinant of \lquote the form of the production process and grounds the intrinsic dynamic of capitalist society\rquote (Postone, 1993, p.278). \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par In his contribution to the critique of Napoleoni, Arthur (1999) suggests that the Italian conflation of the abstract character of the exchange relation with the abstract character of the labour that constitutes value is a \lquote tempting conceptual mistake\rquote since both are, in fact, determined by the value-form (Arthur, 1999). Tha t is, value creation is enabled not by the abstraction from heterogeneous particularity (in money/exchange), nor by the existence of productive activity under the aspect of time, but specifically by the subordination of productive activity to the imperati ves of profit. In other words, the exchange of labour-power for money }{\i and}{ the subjugation of living labour under the aspect of time }{\i presupposes}{ a form of productive activity dominated by the requirement for valorisation, and it is this domination of form over content that demands the representation of abstract-labour in money. Marx (1867a) says as much: \par \par }\pard \s18\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {\'85the labour objectified in the means of production can only be increased\'85to the extent to which it sucks in living labour and objectifies it as money, as general social labour. It is therefore, pre-eminently in this sense \endash which pertains to the valorisation process as the authentic aim of capitalist production \endash that capital as objectified labour (accumulated labour, pre-existent labour and so forth) may be said to confront living labour (immediate labour, etc)\'85(Marx, 1867a, pp.993-994). \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s18\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Here, Marx identifies labour power expended in the technical production process as the fundamental }{\i source}{ of value, but labour power expended in the process of valorisation is the fundamental determinant of the \lquote authentic transformation\rquote of labour into capital. The logical order is therefore exactly the reverse of that advanced by Bellofiore and Finelli (1998). Labour time (calculated as intensity or duration) acquires \lquote practical reality\rquote }{\i only}{ because labour-power has taken the value-form (wages) and is bought by capitalists on the market as an input to production. As an actual abstraction affected by the subordination of the productive process to the imperatives of valorisation \endash abstract-labour can have no }{\i measure}{ other than money. Thus, Arthur (1999) concludes: \par \par }\pard \s18\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {\lquote Money is the only measure of success; it is the existent form of abstract wealth (Marx) and this means that the activity producing it is itself posited as ab stract, that the living labour employed in the capitalist labour process counts only as an abstraction of itself, as a passage of time\rquote (Arthur, 1999, p.149). \par }\pard \s18\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Arthur\rquote s concludes that \lquote the constitution of labour as abstract in the capital relation is in truth more fundamental than its constitution as abstract in exchange\rquote (Arthur, 1999, p.146). If the argument is granted, it seems meaningless to isolate the technical labour process (the source) from the valorisation process (where the measure is constitu ted), although the conceptual distinction is useful. That Marx himself sought an independent or \lquote immanent measure\rquote of value constituted in labour time must then be seen as a retreat to the \lquote Ricardian vice\rquote that has subsequently plagued Marxian social science, at least in its technical labour-embodied and abstract-labour-embodied varieties (Reuten, 1999). \par \par For Bellofiore (1999), of course, it is only \lquote potential\rquote abstract-labour-embodied that is measured in time units in production, and \lquote actual\rquote abstract-labour is indeed measured in money in exchange. Hence, only \lquote potential\rquote value can be calculated (at least in principle) in time units before exchange. Since there is no guarantee that commodities will find an outlet, the actual accounting of the labour tim e expended in production can be interpreted as a measure of abstract-labour/value only on the assumption that the short term expectations of firms are fulfilled (Bellofiore, 1999, fn.14, p.52). The argument for money as the sole measure of value is, howe ver, quite independent of whether an \lquote immanent measure\rquote of abstract-labour-embodied (in time units) can be defined theoretically. What is at stake is not the }{\i possibility}{ of an empirical inquiry based on a \lquote monetary\rquote version of the abstract-labour-embodied theory of value, but its }{\i relevance}{ in an economy where the production and distribution of commodities and labour is }{\i determined}{ by the value-form. In the last and final section I briefly elaborate this criticism as it applies to both \lquote technical\rquote and \lquote social\rquote interpretations of Marx\rquote s abstract-labour-embodied value theory. \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154433}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155198}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165909}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166002}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166066} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166130}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166194}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166258}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166322}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166442}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166866}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167469}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167605}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167864} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167928}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168245}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168359}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168923}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169430}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169610}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169838}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169921}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170102} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170231}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170298}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170526}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170862}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171484}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171593}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171704}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171771}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171838} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171904}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171970}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172381}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172447}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172834}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172900}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173298}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173438}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491175113} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491176082}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177111}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177440}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177663}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177987}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178092}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178276}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178459}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178711} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438969}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701591}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078480}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078929}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079272}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079538}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161213}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161296}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161334} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161488}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161621}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161699}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162009}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169603}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927311}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927542}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987925}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153938} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154116}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155234}3.3{\*\bkmkend _Toc491154433}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155198}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165909}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166002}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166066}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166130}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166194} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491166258}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166322}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166442}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166866}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167469}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167605}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167864}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167928}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168245} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491168359}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168923}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169430}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169610}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169838}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169921}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170102}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170231}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170298} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491170526}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170862}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171484}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171593}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171704}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171771}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171838}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171904}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171970} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491172381}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172447}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172834}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172900}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173298}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173438}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491175113}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491176082}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177111} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491177440}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177663}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177987}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178092}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178276}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178459}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178711} Abstract Labour: Substance versus Form{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438969} {\*\bkmkend _Toc492701591}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078480}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078929}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079272}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079538}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161213}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161296}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161334}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161488} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161621}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161699}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162009}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169603}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927311}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927542}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987925}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153938}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154116} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498155234} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154434}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155199}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165910}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166003}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166067}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166131} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166195}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166259}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166323}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166443}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166867}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167470}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167606}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167865}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167929} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168246}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168360}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168924}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169431}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169611}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169839}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169922}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170103}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170232} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170299}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170527}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170863}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171485}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171594}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171705}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171772}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171839}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171905} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171971} \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {{\*\bkmkend _Toc491154434}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155199}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165910}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166003}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166067}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166131} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491166195}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166259}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166323}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166443}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166867}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167470}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167606}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167865}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167929} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491168246}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168360}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168924}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169431}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169611}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169839}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169922}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170103}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170232} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491170299}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170527}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170863}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171485}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171594}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171705}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171772}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171839}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171905} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491171971}In the light of the previous discussion, the shift in the 1970s from a \lquote technological\rquote to a \lquote social\rquote paradigm can be interpreted as an attempt by Marxist philosophers and economists to grapple with a core question of Marx\rquote s economic theory: what is value, and how is it determined? Within the \lquote technical\rquote paradigm, the ontology of value is typically broached as a Ricardian problematic. If the qu antitative connection between commodities is not arbitrary, the price of a commodity must expresses the unifying reality of an externally given set of exchange relations; hence, a quantity of value is intrinsic in a commodity in the same way as weight exp r esses something intrinsic to mass. This path leads to the argument that value must be prior to and independent of the exchange relations into which the commodity enters, in the same way that the mass of an object has an autonomous existence, quite indepe ndent of its measure. The quest for value as \lquote essence\rquote hidden beneath \lquote phenomenal form\rquote leads out of the sphere of exchange relations and into the sphere of production, theorised as a technical labour process. A dichotomy of essence and appearance operate s, such that money (value-form) has no ontological or determining influence on economic activity; the value-creating substance is physiological abstract-labour, a generalisation from concrete-labour; abstract-labour is self-evident and trans-historical su bstance of value, requiring no special determination - social or otherwise. \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {I have argued that treating abstract-labour as a physical/natural substance severs the labour process from the social determination of commodities and labour and leads to all sort s of conundrums, the most obvious of which is the \lquote immanent\rquote measure of value in labour-time. As Rubin (1928/1972) was the first to point out, the notion of \lquote socially necessary labour time\rquote cannot be constituted in production alone but depends on the mediating influence of the market (see pp.155-8). Rubin recognises, for example, that the determinants of the \lquote technical\rquote labour process \endash duration and intensity of labour, skill levels and output per unit of time \endash all have \lquote social\rquote determinants to do with th e valorisation rather technical processes. Duration of labour depends upon socially acceptable working conditions, intensity of labour on the socially average technique and organisation of production, qualification on the market and state provision of ed ucation and training and output on social determinants of demand, socially and systemically determined. \par \par A second difficulty in the technical interpretation of abstract labour as a physiological substance of value is posed by skilled labour. A useful meas ure of abstract-labour-embodied in units of time must, presumably, take some account of inter- and intra-industry averaging of differing intensities of labour, as well as differing skill levels and production techniques. Given a lack of discounting coeff i cients for intensity and skill, the alternative solution is to sum concrete-labour hours expended in production to arrive at the total number of hours of labour expended in an economy. In this case, abstract-labour is just labour, and the analysis of cap i talism turns out to be just a particular instance of a more general analysis of human interchange with nature: labour, reproduction and want satisfaction, in general. Money and competition have no role in technical labour-embodied value theories other th an to move rates of surplus around until rates of profit are equal. \par \par The empirical question of whether discounting to abstract-labour is possible before exchange has been an important component of contemporary critiques of concrete-labour-embodied (technic al) value theories. It has, however, been seen by several writers as equally a problem for abstract-labour-embodied (social) value theories (Clarke, 1980). Although Marx posits abstract labour as socially necessary labour - AL}{\i\sub i }{ + AL}{\i\sub j}{ = AL, (with AL}{\i\sub i}{ and AL}{\i\sub j}{ socially necessary amounts of particular labour hours }{\i i}{ and }{\i j}{) - the difficulty is that AL is still taken by Marx to be the \lquote substance\rquote of value, a pre-market entity. In general, social developments of Marxian value theory retain this assumption; although abstract-labour is the }{\i social form}{ taken by productive private labour in capitalism \endash rather than a physiological substance \endash this form comes about in production and is merely \lquote realised\rquote , or validated, in exchange. Money as the means facilitating ci rculation is imposed on the analysis as an external measure of value, assumed to be quite independent of the existence of value }{\i in itself}{ . The immanent (albeit unobservable) measure of value is still embodied labour-time. Given that the reproductive proc ess in capitalism is driven by the imperatives of valorisation (the process of value increase, measured in money) it is difficult to see how this can be the case. \par \par In my view, the fundamental problem exhibited by much of the writing within the social paradigm is that it recognises the importance of money in the circuit of capital, but at the same time denies any }{\i ontological}{ role to the value-form. In these theories, the ontological foundation is one of \lquote conservation\rquote , with abstract-labour/value created in production and carried over untransformed from one level of abstraction to the next (for an expansion on this criticism see Mirowski, 1990 and Reuten, 1993). Marx, himself, criticised this physiocratic conception as \lquote an attempt to portray the whole production process as a process of }{\i reproduction}{, with circulation merely as the form of this reproductive process; and the circulation of money only as a phase in the circulation of capital\rquote (Marx, 1863, p.344). The essence of Marx\rquote s criticism of the physiocrats was precisely that capitalist production and circulation cannot be treated as }{\i independent spheres}{ - between which relations of dependence or interdependence can be established - but are }{\i inseparable elements}{ determined within a totality. Value as }{\i a social relation}{ cannot be determined either in production or exchange but exists only as a process; that is, as a result of the motion of capital through the differentiated moments of the circuit as a whole. \par \par At this point it might be objected that some versions of the \lquote social\rquote interpretation of abstract labour }{\i do}{ involve a shift in the ontological status of the concept of value. De Vroey (1982), for example, sees concrete-labour as transformed into abstract-labour only in the market, when the products of that labour are homogenised as money: \lquote exchange creates value\rquote (p.40). In a similar fashion, Himmelweit and Mohun (1978, p.75) identify exchange as the critical moment instituting a \lquote real\rquote disregard of the heterogeneous characteristics of concrete labour and differentiated products, and constituting these as value equivalents (Himmelweit and Mohun, 1978, p.75). In these theories, the market performs the reduction to (AL) establishing value as a market phenomenon. The view that \lquote exchange creates value\rquote is, however, unconvincing given Rubin\rquote s technical condition; namely that the quantity of value produced must depend upon the technical conditions (and organisation) of production and the productivity of labour. What these theories seem to amount to is an alter native privileging of exchange as the \lquote critical moment\rquote in the process of valorisation, rather than an attempt to conceptualise abstract-labour and value as a process brought about by the specificities of a particular form of }{\i production for exchange}{. \par \par In sum, the major achievement of the \lquote social paradigm\rquote is an attempt by theorists to conceptualise the value-creating substance (abstract-labour-embodied) as a historically determinate (social) form of labour determined by the specific character and organisati on of capitalist production. This value dimension is unique to capitalist reality in as much as it typifies a society where the social link between producers is realised only }{\i ex post}{ through commodity exchange as a relation between things. This insight l eads to the second achievement of abstract-labour-embodied value theory: an attempt to conceptualise the circuit of capital as an interconnected whole. Yet, it is precisely at this point that the social paradigm breaks down. The chief failing is a conti n ued privileging of production as the primary moment within the circuit of capital (Clarke, 1980) coupled with a retention of the Ricardian conservation principle (Mirowski, 1990; Reuten, 1993). In consequence, the social paradigm does not go far enough t o establish money as the ontological link between the value-form and its material foundation, as no Marxist starting from an abstract-labour-embodied theory can. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927312}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927543}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987926}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153939}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154117} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155235}Conclusion{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927312}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927543}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987926}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153939}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154117}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155235} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {This chapter outlines a paradigmatic split arising from Marx\rquote s treatment of the category of abstract labour in the opening chapter of }{\i Capital}{ . The split originates in the fundamental question of whether abstract-labour is a }{\i physiological substance}{ embodied in commodities during production (a technical value theory), or a }{\i social form}{ a ssumed by concrete private labour when useful objects are produced for exchange by independent producers (a social value theory). I have argued that }{\i both }{ readings are subject to the same critique, to the extent that they retain an abstract-labour-embodied theory of value. Firstly, a measure of value in labour time requires a simplification to homogeneous abstract-labour, irrespective of whether the pre-market entities are taken to be hours of concrete-labour (as in the technical theory) or unobservable/p otential quantities of abstract-labour (as in the social theory). Secondly, the \lquote paradigm of production\rquote implicit in all labour embodied theories militates against an adequate theorisation of the }{\i circuit of capital as a whole}{. \par \par With respect to these two arguments, I agree with Reuten (1993) that the \lquote embodied character\rquote of abstract-labour is more fundamental than the empirical question of whether, in principle, it is possible to arrive at a pre-market measure of homogeneous labour. In a capitalist econom y, where labour, consumption and production are separate activities and subject to the imperatives of valorisation, private labour must assume a social value-form (wages) and concrete-labour can be abstract-labour only to the extent that it does so. An a d equate theory of value must come to terms with this domination of value-form over value-content. One way to theorise form-determination is to see money as ontologically significant in determining economic activity; in this case, the Ricardian essence and appearance model (where money is but a veil over exploitation) breaks down, and the concept of abstract-labour as labour embodied in production must be abandoned. This argument is most cogently expressed in current reconstructions of abstract-labour not as a pre-market }{\i substance}{ measured in labour time, but as the determinate social }{\i form}{ that comes only when the imperatives of valorisation dominate the technical labour process. The main point of reconstruction is to demonstrate that labour is the source of value, without reference to abstract-labour as an embodied value substance. \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri-24\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155236}4. Abstract Labour: A Reconstruction{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155236} \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par \par In previous chapters, we have seen that Marxian value theories often posit an autonomous reality - axiomatically or historically \endash then assume that the economic categories directly mirror that reality. The project of reconstructing Marxian value theory begins altogether differently, with the hermeneutical question: how is it }{\i meaningful }{ to say that value exists beyond its concept? The theories analysed in this chapter suspend any axiomatic identity of value with the explicit working out of structural tendencies or laws of history. On the contrary, what is known to be \lquote real \rquote is always socially contingent, always mutable and always o pen to interpretation (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.14). From this perspective, the object of value theory is to prove the actuality of value in capitalism by demonstrating its logical (systemic) necessity - leaving open the ontological status of reality }{\i in itself}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ In his \lquote Introduction\rquote to }{\i The Historiography of Economics,}{ Blaug (1991) introduces Rorty\rquote s terms \lquote historical reconstruction\rquote and \lquote rational reconstruction\rquote as opposite approaches to the history of ideas. Historical reconstruction engages past thinkers\rquote \lquote in their own terms\rquote and attempts to arrive at a \lquote correct\rquote }{\i interpretation}{ of what they have done. Rational reconstruction engages past thinkers in contemporary terms in order to \lquote locate their mistakes and to verify that there has been rational progress in the course of intellectual history\rquote (Blaug, 1991, p.ix). So, Marx\rquote s theory might be judged inadequate because it is Hegelian (idealist) and reconstructed to accord with a materialist principle, or it might be judged inadequate because it is \lquote logical-historical\rquote and reconstructed to accord with Hegelian principles of \lquote logic\rquote . The analogy with rational reconstruction should not be pushed too far, however. The crucial point is that \lquote reconstruction\rquote is an }{\i ongoing}{, }{\i systematic and incomplete process}{ both in thought and in reality. Thus, the project of reconstruction requires continuous interrogation of empirical perceptions and existing theories of them. In this way, the \lquote reconstruction\rquote is \lquote at one with Quinian pragmatism in arguing that there can be no analytics without semantics\rquote (Williams, 1989, p.189). }}}{. \par \par This chapter sets out and engages the debates surrounding two attempts to explicate the actuality of value in capitalism. As a third paradigm, this \lquote systematic-dialectical\rquote approach is emergent in contemporary Marxism through the confluence of ideas generated by the neo-Hegelian critiques of }{\i Capital }{ (notably Backhaus 1969/1980; see my chapter 2) and the debates over abstract labour (see my chapter 3). Crucially, the reconstructions resulting from this intellectual synthesis do not claim to be consistent with Marx, nor are they concerned primarily with interpreting }{\i Capital}{ as a systematic dialectical work. Indeed, they explicitly aim to \lquote step outside the inconsistency\rquote of Marx\rquote s method in order to develop what they see as only implicit in }{\i Capital}{: a dialectical theory of the value-form as the specifically \lquote bourgeois form\rquote of }{\i associated}{ abstract-labour (Reuten, 1999, p.92). From this reconstruction of the value-form, labour is constituted as the sole source of value, measured in money. \par \par The analysis proceeds as follows. The first chapter presents a brief digression on the meaning of \lquote reconstruction\rquote in Marxian methodology, including a review of current readings of Hegel\rquote s (1817) }{\i Logic}{ in relation to Marx \rquote s }{\i Capital}{. The second section questions Marx\rquote s \lquote commodity\rquote as an abstract-universal starting point for a systematic dialectical inquiry into value. The third section examines a reconstruction of the commodity that aims explicitly to theorise \lquote the peculiar characteristics of the form of value; namely, the commodity form and, most importantly, to develop money as a form of value\rquote (Eldred and Hanlon, 1981, p.24). The fourth section explicates the dominance of the value-form over the economic activity in the determination of the labour process as a duality of technical process and valorisation process (Reuten and Williams, 1989). The fifth section demonstrates the systemic necessity of labour as the only source of value-added in capitalism. The sixth and final section defends the main conclusion s of reconstructed abstract-labour against a current abstract-labour-embodied critique. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162013}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169606}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927314}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927545}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987928} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153941}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154119}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155237}4.1 Critique and Reconstruction{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162013}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169606}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927314}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927545}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987928} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498153941}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154119}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155237} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {In an analysis of reconstruction and deconstruction in Marxian theory, Arnason (1984) argues that the \lquote basic intentions\rquote of a theory m ust be identified \lquote before the more critical work of reconstruction can start\rquote (p.57). He identifies two general methodological principles: firstly, a hermeneutical principle locating the theorist in question in relation to a previous body of knowledge; secondly, a principle specifying the theory\rquote s contribution to the developmental logic within that tradition. \par \par Applying Arnason\rquote s (1984) principles to the present context, the hermeneutical criterion for reconstruction refers to the way in which the theorie s examined in this section are situated in relation to the paradigmatic split within Marxism. Location within the social paradigm identifies contemporary value-form theory as a contribution to the critique of concrete-labour-embodied (Ricardian) remnants in Marxian theory. The main critique is directed against the ontology of conservation and the privileging of production. The particular relevance of the Ricardian essence-appearance model to the analysis of capitalism is also questioned. From this crit ical/hermeneutic perspective, Marx\rquote s reformulation of the classical value problem as a problem of social form is a major step forward from classical theory; the subsequent Marxian retreat to the natural realm of value substance, a major step back. \par \par With respect to developmental logic, Marx experiments with different strategies and modes of argument throughout his work, but the transition from the (1857/1973) draft }{\i Introduction}{ to }{\i Capital}{ seems to involve a retreat from Hegel\rquote s (1817) speculative logic to a more reductionist methodology. As Fraser (1997) points out the }{\i Logic/Grundrisse}{ interconnection is therefore vital to current efforts to reunite the Hegelian and Marxian dialectics. According to Fraser, the systematic dialectical method of the }{\i Logic}{ is not subject to Marx\rquote s metaphysical complaint that \lquote Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself\rquote (1857/1973, p.101). Fraser reject s any reading of Hegel as a negative influence to be expunged, and denies that Hegelian logic imports mystical idealism into Marxian political economy. Marx\rquote s attempt to divorce Hegel\rquote s dialectical method from his \lquote idealist\rquote ontology does seem to be based on a confusion since Hegel himself makes no distinction between epistemology and ontology}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ I am indebted to Geert Reuten for this insight, confirmed by the \lquote Hegel Dictionary\rquote (compiled by Michael Inwood, 1992, Blackwell, Oxford) in which the term ontology is not even mentioned. \par \par }}}{. The point is that Marx set the terms of the debate wrongly; if there is no metaphysical idealism in Hegel\rquote s method, there is no need to rescue it from mysticism. \par \par Reconstruction begins, then, with a view of the Hegelian and Marxian dialectics not as opposites but as \lquote intrinsically similar, one and the same, two of a kind\rquote (Fraser, 1997, p.82). Despite unanimity on this point, there are several contemporary variati ons on the systematic dialectical approach. For simplicity, I group these into two broad strands of thought. The first strand is concerned with reconstituting the ontological foundations of Marxian value theory by reinterpreting Marx\rquote s critique of Hegel in relation to his critique of capital. For Arthur (2000), the two critiques are inseparable in the sense that Hegel\rquote s \lquote false ontology\rquote may be seen as \lquote a philosophical absolutisation of the standpoint of capital\rquote (p.105). If Hegel\rquote s world is an inverted reality, so too the reality of capital is \lquote an inverted world in which the value abstraction claims priority over its material bearers and the ideal logic of capital imposes itself on human beings\rquote (p.105). In this approach, what is there in Hegel is a rec onstruction of the logic of reality through the exposition of a categorical system. Such a reconstructive method is evident in Marx\rquote s systematic progression of socio-economic categories reconstructing the capitalist mode of production in thought, beginning with the simplest abstract category and dialectically advancing towards the concrete whole (Smith, 1990). \par \par A second application of the systematic dialectic eschews ontological adventures altogether in favour of an epistemological project, founded on a }{\i concept of reality}{ as determined by a science, where science is a \lquote systematic production of knowledge by way of rational and inter-subjective discourse\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.14). Reconstructing Marxian value theory as \lquote scientific\rquote (in the above sen se of the term) invokes a return to transcendental idealism as a philosophical principle: that is, social reality is taken to be all that we \endash inter-subjectively \endash know about it. Conversely, transcendental idealism is reconstructed not as the solution to a thought-reality dualism founded on the Kantian unknowable thing in itself, but as a dialectical exchange between social reality and our thinking about it. Where, in Hegel (1817) fundamental categories are treated as pure categories independent of conti ngent empirical instantiation, the rectified systematic dialectic is a method for an }{\i ongoing inquiry}{ into empirical perceptions of capitalist reality as well as existing theories of it (Reuten, 1993). The rest of the dissertation is concerned, primarily, w ith the methodological principles developed within this second approach, and their application to the reconstruction of Marxian categories. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162014}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169607}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927315}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927546}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987929} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153942}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154120}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155238}4.2 A Systematic Dialectical Starting Point{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162014}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169607}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927315}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927546} {\*\bkmkend _Toc497987929}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153942}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154120}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155238} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The systematic dialectical critique of }{\i Capital}{ begins with Marx\rquote s co mmodity as an abstract universal concept for the capitalist mode of production. As I have demonstrated, the difficulties of Marx\rquote s opening chapter arise out of his inconsistent management of the commodity form, especially the dualities of use-value and value, concrete-labour and abstract-labour. Might these difficulties be overcome by a different reading of the \lquote commodity \rquote as a preparatory (rather than a universal) notion belonging to the moment of critical inquiry, so preceding the presentation proper? Banaji (1979) does exactly this; taking Marx\rquote s comment on the commodity as an appearance - \lquote a reflected sphere of the total process of capital\rquote - he argues that the commodity }{\i as a concept }{has \lquote still to be posited\rquote in its particular-universal doubling of use-value/value (p.30). Arthur (1997) \lquote gratefully accepts \rquote this reading, which implies that }{\i Capital}{ has a double starting point: (1) the \lquote commodity\rquote as an }{\i analytic}{ category in a preliminary process of inquiry, and (2) \lquote value\rquote as the }{\i synthetic}{ }{\i abstract universal }{starting point for a dialectical presentation. In a comment written shortly before his death, Marx (1879) appears to confirm these readings of the commodity as a preparatory notion and value as the universal capitalist concept: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {In the first place I do not start out from \lquote concepts\rquote , hence I do not start out from \lquote the concept of value\rquote \'85 What I start out from is that simplest social form in which the labour-product is presented in contemporary society, and this is the \lquote }{\i commodity}{\rquote . I analyse it, and ri ght from the beginning, in the form in which it appears (Marx, 1879, p.198). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par It seems plausible, then, that the first two sections of }{\i Capital }{have to do with perceptions and with the process of working these up into concepts. On this reading, the present ation proper does not commence until the reconstitution of the commodity as an entity of double (material-social) form, in the third section. The argument that Marx\rquote s }{\i presentation}{ of his \lquote social\rquote value theory begins properly with his determination of the value-form is not particularly new (see Murray, 1993). What is new in the systematic dialectical critique is an argument for \lquote dissociated labour\rquote (rather than the commodity) as the most abstract universal concept for the \lquote bourgeois [private] mode of association\rquote . As a requirement for social cohesion in a system based on the dissociation of labour, production and consumption, the interplay of the value-form and the exchange relation constitutes the first moment in which abstract-labour and value are determ ined as actual. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438975}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701597}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078486}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078935}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079278} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079544}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161219}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161302}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161340}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161494}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161627}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161705}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162015}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169608} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927316}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927547}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987930}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153943}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154121}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155239}4.3 {\*\bkmkend _Toc492438975}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701597}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078486} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493078935}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079278}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079544}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161219}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161302}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161340}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161494}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161627}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161705} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493162015}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169608}Concrete Dissociated and Abstract Associated Labour{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927316}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927547}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987930}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153943}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154121} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498155239} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {An early attempt to reconstruct Marx\rquote s starting point beginning with the \lquote contradictory nature of the value-form\rquote is represented in the work of the Sydney-Konstanz research group (Eldred and Hanlon, 1981; Eldred, Hanlon, Kleiber and Roth, 1982, 1983). Here the value-form is posited, at the outset, as the money-form derived by Marx as universal equivalent. Further elaboration then establishes the money-form as dominant over the s ocial allocation of labour and it is this dominance over the labour process that \lquote signifies the transition of the value-form from the sphere of exchange to its domination of bourgeois production\rquote (Eldred and Hanlon, 1981, p.27). The essence of the value-form as the \lquote mode of association\rquote is that it enables industrial commodities to be produced by concrete }{\i dissociated }{ labour. The contradictory character of the industrial (capitalist) commodity is thereby established as the universal-particular opposition of }{\i abstract associated}{ and }{\i concrete dissociated}{ labour: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {To emphasise the value character of the commodity, we refer to it as a product of abstract associated labour, as a }{\i universal}{ , as a member of the universe of the industrial commodity-products of labour. By contrast, the commodity as a product of dissociated concrete labour will be referred to as a }{\i particularity }{(Eldred and Hanlon, 1981, p.29). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par This constitution of the double character of commodities and labour is a very different formulation from Marx\rquote s analytic derivation of abstract labour and value from the useful qualities of labour and objects respectively. In place of analytical (reductive) derivation, we now have the internal doubling of a concept into \lquote particularity\rquote and \lquote universality\rquote , referred to by Reuten and Williams (1989) as \lquote the basic form of internal opposition or contradiction\rquote in dialectical thinking. In a system of private independent production (bourgeois production), the basic form of contradiction is \lquote that dissociated labouring act ivities only become associated in the exchange of their result, objectified labour, represents the kernel of the contradiction between production and exchange\rquote (Eldred and Hanlon, 1981, p.31). It is important to note that the contradiction inherent in the concept of dissociated labour is not resolved by its negation in exchange; on the contrary, association is a }{\i necessary}{ condition enabling the very existence and perpetuation of dissociated activity, given the microeconomic organisation of production and consumption. \par \par Although the necessity of money seems to be demanded by the value-form (the need for association) rather than the exchange relation (the need for exchange ratios between commodities), Eldred, Hanlon Kleiber and Roth (1982) retain the commodity \endash albeit reconstituted as a duality of money and use-value - as their starting point. Later reconstructions abandon this starting point, and begin directly with concepts of dissociated-concrete and associated-abstract labour (Reuten, 1988a; and Reuten and Williams, 1989). In these later reconstructions, the concept of value-form itself undergoes transformation. It becomes more than the monetary manifestation of value in the \lquote specifically capitalist mode of association\rquote enabling the dissociation of production, consumption and labour (although it is this also); more, crucially, the value-form comes to define the bourgeois epoch as uniquely }{\i form-determined}{ (Reuten, 1988a). The next section examines this particular development of Marxian theory and elaborates some of its implications. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438976}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701598}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078487}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078936}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079279} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079545}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161220}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161303}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161341}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161495}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161628}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161706}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162016}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169609} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927317}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927548}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987931}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153944}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154122}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155240}4.4 Reconstructing the Theory of Value-Form{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438976} {\*\bkmkend _Toc492701598}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078487}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078936}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079279}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079545}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161220}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161303}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161341}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161495} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161628}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161706}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162016}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169609}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927317}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927548}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987931}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153944}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154122} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498155240} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { The basic elements of the theory of value-form as a theory of form-determination are set out in Reuten (1988a) and in Reuten and Williams (1989). The movement towards the starting point is introduced through Hegel\rquote s (1817) preparatory universal notions of \lquote being\rquote and \lquote nothing\rquote , from which }{\i self-production}{ is derived as a universal notion analogous to Hegel\rquote s \lquote becoming\rquote . Self-production is first posited as a contradictory notion in that the individual cannot develop (become) outside of society; sociation (social activity) is therefore a natural (trans-historical) necessity both for the reproduction and development of the human individual, whatever the form of society. \par }{\fs20 \par }{In bourgeois production (further specified as private, independent production), sociate activity is negated by }{\i dissociation}{ ; that is, by the separation of production and consumption into distinct activities, and their organisation into independent units. Dissociation imparts to labour its historically specific }{\i form}{ as independent private labour. In each unit, however, labour is dependent, having no access to means of production. A concomitant of labour\rquote s independence at the level of macro-organisation and dependen ce at the level of micro-organisation is that the production of useful objects must conform to an aim external to the usefulness of the objects themselves. In order to exist, dissociated activity therefore requires a moment of }{\i association}{ transcending the sociation-dissociation opposition. This moment of association is the value-form, constituted as systematically prior to the market, in contradistinction from both Marx (1867a) and Eldred and his associates (1981, 1982, 1983) who begin with commodity exc hange. \par }{\fs20 \par \tab THE VALUE-FORM AS MODE OF ASSOCIATION \par }{The value-form as \lquote bourgeois mode of association\rquote acquires further determination in the exchange relation, which aligns dissociated production and consumption and constitutes the labour expended in microecono mic units as interdependent or social labour. In this way, the exchange relation constitutes the first condition of existence of dissociated activity. The exchange relation is the grounding moment, the movement of force that provides for the coming into being of dissociation-association as an \lquote identity of opposites\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989). Association shows the contradiction (dissociation) that it cannot exist for itself, but must exist only in conjunction with a moment of association as a \lquote difference in unity\rquote (dissociation-association). The exchange relation nevertheless remains at the level of an abstract-universal, and is therefore inadequate as a representation of the totality of determinations and internal relations constitutive of }{\i capitalist}{ production for exchange; the \lquote object-totality\rquote has yet to be determined, concretely. \par \par The immanent dynamic of the presentation is driven on by this persistent inadequacy of concepts to comprehend fully the form and dimensions of their conditions of exist ence. The form determination of exchange (as bourgeois form) is first given by the fact that the divergence of }{\i physical}{ inputs and outputs to the productive process is not }{\i in itself}{ the aim of productive activity (as might be the case if production and co nsumption were not separated). Rather, the opposition underlying the form of exchange is a universal-particular opposition of value and use-value. Essentially, value satisfies a necessary requirement for association; namely, that heterogeneous (incommen surable) objects be made commensurable or conformable \lquote to a universal, unitary form or common denominator\rquote (Reuten, 1988a, p.50). As such, value is the \lquote necessary dimension of labour and of the useful objects produced by it in the bourgeois mode of production\rquote (p.51). \par \par The argument for the bourgeois mode of association as \lquote form-determined\rquote now proceeds as follows: given dissociated production, consumption and labour, and given the exchange relation as the mode of association, the particular products of labour }{\i necessarily}{ have to take on a social-universal form: value. To be validated as socially necessary (and not wasted), both inputs and outputs to the productive process (including labour power) must take on this social-universal form, in disregard for the ir particular useful qualities. More crucially, the production of surplus value (value-added over and above the original value of inputs) replaces the production of use-values as the external driving force of production. Without the creation of value-ad ded, private productive activity is interrupted and stagnates: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {This mode of production further entails the contradiction that the }{\i social}{ form is the external determinant of this mode of }{\i private}{ production! Thus the abstract-social-universal form dominates over the private-particular such that the private-particular is determined by the abstract social-universal form. As such the bourgeois mode of production is form-determined (Reuten, 1988a, p.52). \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {In a systematic dialectical presentation, the process of arriving at the ever more concrete determinations of the value-form must continue until capitalism \lquote the existent\rquote is apprehended \lquote as actuality\'85which requires no external or exogenous determinants for its systematic reproduction\rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989 , p.23). The essential unity of the presentation consists in this continuous movement of existence and ground, further determined as a unity of essence and appearance. The \lquote market\rquote further grounds this essential unity by constituting the products of dissociated labour as commodities, and associated labour as abstract-labour in the form of money. The relation between the value-form and the exchange relation now becomes clearer. \par \par }{\fs20 \tab MONEY AND THE ROLE OF THE MARKET \par }{The relationship is essentially this: the value-form of labour and its products is constituted in the market, a mode of social synthesis centred on the function of money as a \lquote universal equivalent\rquote . In this capacity money is vested with an abstract capacity to equate, symbolically, all products o n the market and all types of labour in money terms. Thus, the salient feature of money is that it has assumed the compelling necessity of an objective social law, aptly described by Sohn-Rethel (1978) as \lquote the law of the separation of exchange and use\rquote (p.25). The abstraction affected by money is not therefore an abstraction in mind, but a practical abstraction that takes place every time individuals perform the act of exchanging commodities }{\i as values}{, in the market. Thus: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {The abstraction does not sprin g from labour but from exchange as a particular mode of social interrelationship, and it is through exchange that the abstraction imparts itself to labour, making it \lquote abstract human labour\rquote . The money abstraction can be more properly termed \lquote the exchange abstraction\rquote (Sohn-Rethel, 1978, p.6). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Money grounds, concretely, the distinction between use and exchange as mutually exclusive practices. The practice of use covers an infinite field of human activities, comprising \lquote man\rquote s interchange with nature\rquote . This }{\i material}{ practice must be foregone while the }{\i social}{ practice of exchange holds sway. According to Sohn-Rethel (1978), relative prices \endash a still more concrete determination of money - are what creates the system of social communication between dissociate d producers and consumers, mediating the actions of individuals, performed independently and in complete oblivion of the socialising effect. The negation of use-value in exchange is therefore a \lquote real abstraction\rquote or an event in time and space that enables an actual disregard for the useful properties of commodities and their sole expression as quantitative differences measured in terms of a uniform common denominator. \par \par The concept of \lquote real abstraction\rquote is not unique to value-form theory; indeed it is a cornerstone of many contemporary abstract-labour theories of value (see chapter 3). I consider the term problematic, however, in that it makes \endash implicitly - an ontological claim that is difficult to sustain; namely that the categories of thought are given directly by historical (social) reality. Mohun (1984), for example, advances an ontological \lquote subordination of the theory to the real world\rquote as a materialist \lquote critieria governing the adequacy of a theory to its object\rquote (p.396). Elsewhere, he argues that this materialist position requires \lquote a (more or less) adequate reflection in thought of an abstraction process that really occurs independently of thinking about it\rquote (1994a, p.218). Hence, Marxian theory can be seen as a correction to the \lquote inadequate\rquote Ri cardian reflection of reality. The correction to the labour theory of value maintains the \lquote essentialist ontology in which value is labour time\rquote (1994a, p.215), but recognises that the real historical abstraction takes place in exchange. The \lquote moment of exchange is thus the critical one\rquote , causally affecting the divergence of commodity prices and values (Mohun, 1984, p.401; also Himmelweit and Mohun, 1978). Lurking behind this concept of \lquote real abstraction\rquote is the old Ricardian ontology of value, combined wi th a logical-historical conflation of material reality with hypotheses/theories about it. \par \par While Reuten and Williams (1989) do not extend their criticism to the concept of \lquote real abstraction\rquote it is interesting that they do not use the term, but refer instead to \lquote actual abstraction\rquote as the }{\i social recognition}{ of labour and its products in the market. In actual social intercourse, the meaning of exchange - as the social nexus for the operation of the value-form as mode of association of private production \endash i s constituted as value and its measure is constituted as money. Thus, Reuten (1988a) writes: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {In as much as the space of an object is further constituted by the measure of length (for which, e.g. metres or yards are standards), the value of an object is further constituted by the measure of money (for which, e.g., a dollar or a pound sterling are standards). Both length and money are constituted in social intercourse and as such they are social facts (Reuten, 1988a, p.51). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par The double constitution of value and its measure are only understandable as \lquote social facts\rquote to the extent that they are universally recognised and validated as such through the practice of exchange. The meaning of value and the meaning of money cannot be given }{\i a priori}{, but must be re -constituted continuously in practice and dialogue, extending to the practice of knowledge production itself. In }{\i Capital}{, Marx (1867a) seems to come close to a similar concept of \lquote actual abstraction\rquote when he writes in the last pages of his opening chapter: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri543\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {The production of commodities must be fully developed before the scientific conviction emerges, from experience itself, that all the different kinds of private labour\'85 are continually being reduced to the quantitative proportions in which society require s them. The categories of bourgeois economics consist precisely of forms of this kind. They are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for the relations of production belonging to this historically determined mode of social production, i.e. commodity production (Marx, 1867a, pp.168-69). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Of course, the exchange of commodities for quantities of money is also an exchange between }{\i owners}{ of those commodities, so that actual abstraction is insufficient in itself to convey the soc ial meaning of exchange as the transfer of possession under property laws. Reuten and Williams\rquote s (1989) maintain that the contradiction between the right to property and the right to existence (the contradiction between competition subjects as the holders of property or the capacity to labour) is transcended by the doubling of competitive society into }{\i civil society}{ and the }{\i state}{ . As an attempt to theorise the value-form determined economy as the crucial moment of society (and the crucial determinant of ec onomic policy), the project of systematic dialectical reconstruction may be seen as an ambitious attempt to complete a project that defeated both Hegel and Marx. The current dissertation remains, however, at the level of abstract-universal concepts, and is concerned only with Reuten and William\rquote s (1989) preliminary constitution of the form-determined economy as }{\i capitalist production}{. \par \par \tab }{\fs20 CAPITALIST PRODUCTION \par }{The movement from the bourgeois form of production (characterised by dissociate activity) to capita list production (characterised by the capital-labour relation) takes place through the interplay of value-form and the exchange relation in the market and concerns the nexus of value and price. The first point is that the value of a commodity appears onl y as a money price, and this price can be anticipated in production as }{\i ideal money}{. Reuten and Williams (1989) coin the term }{\i ideal pre-commensuration}{ to describe the anticipation of the value of labour and products (in production) before any }{\i actual commensuration}{ (in the market). The concept of ideal pre-commensuration establishes the necessary interdependence of production and circulation required by the specifically capitalist form of productive activity based on the production of commodities for sale. Fundamentally, ideal pre-commensuration implies that the valorisation process (the process of increasing value) dominates the technical process (the process of producing useful objects) forcing a doubling of the labour process into a technical process (of use-value production) and a valorisation process (of value-production). To the extent that productive activity is determined by the imperatives of valorisation, form dominates content and capitalist production is constituted as form-determined. \par \par The concept of }{\i capital}{ can now be introduced as the value-form of means of production and labour-power, given abstract meaning as }{\i self-valorisation}{ ; that is, money -> production -> more money (Reuten, 1988a, p.54). The contradictory character of capital as self-va lorisation is that form (value) determines content (use-value), yet form requires content for its existence. With the introduction of capital, the contradiction of the bourgeois epoch - that the social form (value) is the external determinant of the priv ate production of useful objects - \lquote is transcended into the sphere of }{\i the economy}{\'85whence it is termed capitalist production\rquote (Reuten, 1988a, pp.54-55). Transcendence of bourgeois (private) production into the sphere of the (social) economy does not resolve this contradiction inherent in dissociate activity, but further determines the use-value/value duality as a contradictory duality of valorisation and technical processes. This duality is crucial to the main conclusion of Reuten and Williams (1989) syste matic dialectical theory: the determination of labour as the }{\i sole element adding value in the process of valorisation}{. \par \par \tab }{\fs20 MONEY, LABOUR AND LABOUR POWER \par }{The contradictory duality of the labour process is explicated in Reuten (1988a, pp.55-58) and in Reuten and Williams (1989, pp.65-74) as follows. The technical labour process (the process of use-value production) requires three inputs to production: nature (freely available to capital), means of production (previously produced within the sphere of capital ist production) and labour power (a human capacity, created and socialised within the household and, thus, outside the sphere of value production). Of the three inputs to production, only labour power is }{\i not}{ produced for sale, is }{\i not}{ driven by the imperatives of valorisation and is }{\i not}{ immediately available for the creation of value (that is, the household is not a firm and human capacities are not produced as commodities). This leads to an important new insight: labour power cannot be a commodity - as Marx (1867a) would have it \endash because \lquote being produced for sale\rquote under capitalist relations of production is a necessary aspect of the commodity, and this is not an aspect of labour power}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ In }{\i Capital, }{Marx writes: \lquote This division of a product into a useful thing and a value becomes practically important, only when exchange has acquired such an extension that usef ul articles are produced for the purpose of being exchanged, and their character as values has therefore to be taken into account, beforehand, during production\rquote (cited Williams, 1998, p.192).}}}{. \par \par Two crucial implications follow: firstly, if labour power is not a c ommodity, then the price of labour-power cannot be systematically related to its (non-existent) price of production; the supply price of labour power contains no value-added (Reuten and Williams, 1989, pp. 70, 89, 165, 167). In this respect, labour power differs fundamentally from the technical means of production produced within the capitalist process (the price of which is related to price of production) and from nature (freely available to capital). Secondly, labour power does not create value unless subject to the valorisation process: it must be brought under the value-form (the wage) and under the aspect of time (the employment contract). As Williams (1998) points out, this }{\i autonomous}{ character of labour power has enormous political and economic ramifications: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri565\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {\'85the compulsion of formal subordination, the struggles over the labour process derived from the inability of employers simply to \lquote switch on\rquote their workers, and the consequent need for \lquote real subordination\rquote (human resource management), together with the characteristics above, add up to a very major difference between labour-power and (other commodities), including those constituting other means of production (Williams, 1998, p.192). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Given that, in capitalism, the allocation of labour to the p roduction of different commodities is coordinated with respect to the pursuit of money denominated profits, ideal pre-commensuration (in money terms) relates value to labour. Fundamentally, the decision to employ labour is mediated by the purchase of lab our power, and this depends on the price of labour power and the price of the commodities it produces. Since labour power is not a product of value relations and has no }{\i pre-existing}{ price of production the value of labour power is not determined, as Marx ( 1867a) argued, by the value of the subsistence consumption bundle plus some moral element. Nor is it determined in neo-Ricardian fashion by a vector of labour times. On the contrary, the value of labour is determined partly by market forces in commodity and labour markets, partly by distributional and labour struggles and partly by the macroeconomic policy stance of the state (Williams, 1998). The wage is the only price of labour power. \par \par The wage, as a \lquote manifestation of the value-form\rquote of labour power is pure quantity (expressed in money) and motivates an immediate move to valorisation. This subordination of the technical labour process under the valorisation process determines the labour expended within the capitalist production process as the one and only factor creating value-added, with one important caveat: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri565\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { The argument that only labour potentially creates value-added should in no way be read to imply that value-added is in some way proportional to labour (for which at this level an aggregative meas ure is anyway lacking), as a labour-embodied theory of value would have it. It is only the validation of labour and its products in the market that determines where and how much value (-added) is actualised (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.70). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri-2\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {Summarising the argument: there are three factors contributing to the technical production of use-value (nature, means of production and labour) but only one factor contributing to valorisation: labour. This follows from the systemic determination of labour power as the }{\i only}{ factor of valorisation grasped by the value-form (the wage) and produced outside of capitalist commodity production. The relation between surplus value (-added) and surplus labour cannot, however, be immediately given in production as the orthodo x (labour-embodied) argument would have it. The basic reason for this is systemic: quantitative determination must await the introduction of money, valorisation and capital. Only at the moment of association is (dissociated) private labour constituted a s (associated) social labour and abstract-labour constituted as aggregate value-added: Y = mL, where (Y) is total value-added, (m) is the value productivity of labour and (mL) is abstract-labour (Reuten and Williams, 1989, pp.94-98). Hence, surplus value (s) is given by: s = (m - w) L, where w is the wage-rate (Reuten and Williams, p.105). \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par On the basis of their reconstructions of abstract-labour and surplus value, Reuten and Williams (1989) claim to confirm Marx\rquote s (1867a) most important insight concernin g the sole source of surplus value: labour. The main conclusion is that the privileging of labour as the only source of value-added can be arrived at without recourse to abstract-labour as the \lquote substance of value\rquote , and without an immanent measure of value, either in physical or hypothetical units of labour time. Critics argue to the contrary that, by abandoning Marx\rquote s concept of embodied abstract-labour, reconstructed value-form theory does not (indeed cannot) provide a quantitative theory of prices and p rofits. The next section examines this criticism. Of particular interest is the shift that occurred very early in this particular debate, from disputation about the relation of the reconstruction to Marxian value theory (Likitkijsomboon, 1995), to a muc h more open-ended and indeterminate discussion of the }{\i logical foundations}{ of the value equation (Moseley, 1997). Aside from the substantive issue, the debate confirms the link established throughout this dissertation between disagreements about method and the indeterminacy of substantive debates. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078488}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078937}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079280}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079546}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161221} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161304}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161342}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161496}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161629}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161707}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162017}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169610}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927318}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927549} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987932}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153945}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154123}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155241}4.5 The Concept of Abstract-Labour: a Criticism and a Defence{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078488}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078937}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079280} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493079546}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161221}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161304}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161342}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161496}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161629}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161707}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162017}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169610} {\*\bkmkend _Toc497927318}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927549}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987932}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153945}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154123}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155241} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {Likitkisomboon (1995) argues that: \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\li567\ri565\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright {\'85 value-form theory \lquote from Rubin to Reuten\rquote conflates concepts of abstract-labour and social labour, resulting in a series of \lquote conceptual collapses \rquote that finally \lquote degenerates into the rejection of abstract-labour [embodied], labour-value and labour-exchange ratios, leaving in place only exchange-value, the value-form, price-form and \lquote money\rquote , all without quantitative g rounds (Likitkijsomboon, 1995, p.93). \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\ri-2\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { Likitkijsomboon does not, however, articulate the logical foundations for his criticism, and these must be educed from his argument. More interesting in the current context, is Moseley\rquote s (1997) further development of Likitkijsomboon\rquote s logical objection. Moseley takes as his main target the Reuten and Williams (1989) equation of aggregate value-added and the monetary expression for abstract labour: Y = mL. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par According to Moseley (1997), the equation has three element s: Y, m, and L. In order for these elements to be constituted into a meaningful theory, two of the three variables must be determined independently of the equation. These two variables would then mutually determine the third variable. If Y (value-added ) is the dependent variable, then (m) and (L) must be determined exogenously, and taken as \lquote given\rquote in the equation. This is a \lquote logical necessity\rquote if the equation is not to be a tautology (true by definition) or indeterminant (two unknowns in the one equation). If this is agreed, then there can be only two logical options for the independent determination of abstract labour, mL: \par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (1)\tab}}\pard \s16\qj\fi-360\li360\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx360{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls79\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}} \ls79\adjustright {mL is determined as a function of some other variable(s), also independent of Y, as expressed in some other equation(s). Abstract labour is then taken as given in the equation for the determination of value-added; \par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \cgrid \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 (2)\tab}}\pard \s16\qj\fi-360\li360\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\jclisttab\tx360{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls79\pnrnot0\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}} \ls79\adjustright {mL is an effect, not explained further and simply taken as \lquote given\rquote in the equation. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Moseley (1997) argues that these logical requirements must be met in order to give a n adequate theory of the magnitude of value-added: there are no other options. The Reuten and Williams (1989) value-form equation clearly does not conform to these requirements of formal logic (since the elements of the right and left sides of the equati on appear to be mutually determining). Moseley confesses that \lquote the exact meaning\rquote of this mutual determination \lquote is not entirely clear to me\rquote (p.4). Nevertheless, he concludes that \lquote the consequence\rquote of abandoning abstract labour as the substance of value (as determined independently of prices) \lquote seems to be that this [value-form] interpretation presents no quantitative theory of the determination of the magnitude of value-added, or of the total price of commodities. The value-added is simply taken as given, not explained\rquote (p.4). If (Y) is taken as given, surplus-value is also unexplained by the Reuten and Williams equation: s = mL \endash wL\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab ; where surplus-value (s) is the difference between value-added (mL) and wages (wL). \par \par Moseley (1997) follows up his criticism of the logical foundations of reconstructed value theory with an abstract-labour-embodied interpretation of Marx\rquote s value theory as a \lquote plausible hypothesis, the validity of which should be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which it can explain the important phenomena of capitalism\rquote (p.1). The reduction coefficients (criticised by Reuten and Williams) can, he says, be assumed \endash \lquote taken as given\rquote - since \lquote a scientific theory may involve the postulation of unobservable entities\rquote (p.3). Accordin g to Moseley, the \lquote main advantage\rquote of an axiomatic assumption of simplified abstract labour as the \lquote substance of value\rquote is that it \lquote provides a quantitative theory of profit, which is the main question of Marx\rquote s theory\rquote (pp.1-2). The \lquote appropriate way to test such a \ldblquote metaphysical\rdblquote theory is to evaluate the explanatory power of the theory on the basis of the range of important phenomena that can be explained on the basis of the postulated unobservable entities\rquote (p3). The essential implication is that importa nt conclusions of Marx\rquote s theory \endash struggles over the duration and intensity of labour, technical change, and the falling rate of profit \endash cannot be obtained from the value-form theory because value-added is not explained by the quantity of labour hours. \par \par The first point to note about Moseley\rquote s (1997) critique is what is implicit or unacknowledged in it. The core assumption is that Marxism can develop as an explanatory social science only when its central concepts are expressed as theorems and elucidated in formalist models designed to prove derived postulates via testable (\lquote plausible\rquote ) hypotheses}{\cs22\f6\fs28\cf1\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \cs22\f6\fs20\cf1\lang1033 \chftn }{ }{\fs20 Moseley (1997) is incorrect in believing that the rectified s ystematic dialectical method precludes either empirical investigation or the falsification of arguments. A claim that reality is fundamentally epistemological and constituted by inter-subjective knowledge of it immediately constitutes the practice of sci ence as a semantic, social practice. If inter-subjectivity (or \lquote subjectivity\rquote in Smith, 1993) is incorporated into the conceptual scheme, then the dualistic distinction between inquiry and presentation collapses and \lquote the developing systemic presentation must continually re-interrogate reality, and incorporate the results into the}{ }{\fs20 presentation\rquote (Williams, 1998, p.191). The \lquote primary site of this interrogation of actuality by the systemic conceptual structure is at the level of the empirical, grasped as concrete. And the empirical is intrinsically particular and specific\rquote ; hence, the role of conceptual abstraction is \lquote to grasp the patterned internal connections and organisation of these empirical specificities\rquote (p.191).}}}{. A corollary to this is an assumption that the methods of analytic philosophy \endash and therefore a formalist interpretation of the disputed equations - are genera lly agreed upon, so constituting an appropriate critique; no alternative option is available to consideration. This is quite extraordinary, given that the entire project of value-form theory is, in essence, a refutation of analytic abstraction! What is at stake, in fact, is not the equation but the status of abstractions in Marxian and value-form theory, and the }{\i different meanings}{ of value that result from these conceptual alternatives. \par \par For Reuten and Williams (1989), abstract labour is an actual social abstraction (or, to borrow Sohn-Rethel\rquote s term, an \lquote exchange abstraction\rquote ), not merely a cognitive abstraction, as it is for Moseley (1997). This means that the disputed equation is not intended to establish a relationship between independent and depende nt variables, but to say something fundamental about capitalist society: what is fundamental is that (m) and (L) are inextricably interconnected and that their \lquote unity\rquote makes capitalism what it }{\i essentially }{ is. In capitalism, value and price are mutually constituted by exchange, the only process whereby the private, concrete-labour of individuals becomes validated as social, abstract-labour. Hence, there is no sense in which abstract-labour is }{\i independent}{ of its monetary expression. On the contrary, abstract-labour is (mL): labour-time measured in money, where the money productivity of labour (m) is the dominant operator. \par \par From this perspective, an axiomatic or formalist logic is wholly inappropriate to the development of a theory of social value. Given the unity of value and price, Moseley\rquote s (1997) question must be rephrased: can }{\i any}{ theory predict prices on the basis of labour-time? By itself labour - as measured in time - is not homogenous (a reductive abstraction), and can be made homogenous only by a ssuming away a real problem, by definition (as Marx, in fact, did). Moreover, labour-time is not a constant since labour-productivity changes over time. Since there is no adequate measure of physical labour productivity, there is also no adequate measur e of socially necessary labour time. How then does an abstract-labour-embodied theory explain prices and profits, as Moseley (1997) demands? The value-form answer is pre-commensuration. Firms\rquote expectations about prices and elasticities of demand for a product influence the allocation of concrete labour between industries, ensuring that causation is two-way: (L) depends on (Y) and (Y) depends on (L). \par \par The crux of the argument is that essence is not value, but the systemic form-determination that gives (Y = mL) the specific meaning that puzzles Moseley: the value-added (Y) has a value dimension - that is, a monetary form - as does abstract labour (mL). Concrete labour does not have a value-form, but is brought under the dimension of value, and is form-det ermined. The empirical work that logically accompanies this theory of \lquote social value\rquote is not therefore concerned with the verification of hypotheses about labour-values and/or their conservation in prices. Rather its first concern is with an inquiry into }{\i how}{ the value dimension interacts with core (non-contingent) elements of the system, such as a tendency towards the equalisation of profit or a tendency for equal prices in a market. A second inquiry is concerned with }{\i how }{ contingent divisions of surplus in to profit, interest and rent between and within industries impacts on the actual profit and rate of profit of firms (e.g. Reuten, 1988b; 1998). Given the research agendas of prominent writers within the paradigm, it might be legitimately argued that valu e form theory expands the scope of theoretical and empirical research beyond the unnecessary fixation on the determination of profits by so-called \lquote labour-values\rquote , thereby challenging the Ricardian assumption that this is Marx\rquote s \lquote main\rquote objective. Value-for m theorists argue, on the contrary, that the main objective of Marxian theory is to determine labour as the only (single) source of value-added, and to investigate the implications of the model for contemporary capitalism. \par \par }\pard\plain \s3\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel2\adjustright \b\fs32\lang3081\cgrid {\fs28 {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927319}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927550}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987933}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153946}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154124} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155242} \par Conclusion{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927319}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927550}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987933}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153946}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154124}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155242} \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The substantiv e point established in this chapter is that labour is the sole factor of value-added in the valorisation process, establishing value as a pure quantitative (monetary) relationship between abstract-labour and prices. In this relationship labour is not the causal element; rather causality is attributed to the systemic essence of capitalism. Given dissociated labour, production and consumption: (1) the value to labour relationship must be continuously reconstituted as the system reproduces itself and (2) th is necessitates the value-form as the \lquote mode of association\rquote , constituting labour and value as \lquote abstract\rquote in exchange. The more concrete grounding of abstract-labour and value in price, the interdependence of essence and ground and the systemic determinatio n of elements implies that the independence requirements of formal logic are not captured in the Reuten and Williams (1989) value equation, and should not be. Indeed the whole motivation for reconstruction is the inadequacy of the analytic approach, base d as it is on the stipulation of causal links from abstract-labour-embodied to value and price. The key objection to this approach is that it misses the role of the market (price system) in allocating labour to different technical-material labour processe s, as it misses the co-constitution of value and price that makes the form-determined economy what it }{\i essentially}{ is. \par \par If the object of the value-form reconstruction of abstract-labour has been misunderstood, this is in large part due to a critical failure to understand the rectified systematic dialectical model on which it is based. Moseley (1997), for example, does not recognise that what is at stake in the reconstruction of abstract-labour is not the absence or presence of an equation, but the interpret ation and meaning of the equation. Moreover, interpretation and meaning are not \lquote given\rquote at this level of abstraction (as they are in the case of an axiomatic exposition) by the requirements of formal logic, but must be socially constructed within a dialogic-dialectical-synthetic framework. Fundamentally, value is not \lquote given\rquote within the systematic dialectical argument at all \endash on the contrary, axioms are eschewed and the existence of value must be }{\i demanded}{ }{\i by the logic of the exposition}{. \par \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright {Ultimately, the \lquote methodological imperative\rquote guiding a systematic presentation remains the determination of the object-totality; that is, to resolve, systematically, the contradiction and inadequacy from which the presentation starts, and so arrive at a \lquote }{\i comprehension}{ of reality \rquote (Reuten and Williams, 1989, p.20). In the case of capitalism, however, the comprehension is never complete since value }{\i cannot}{ reproduce itself as a self-sustaining totality. Fully determined, the value-form can fully grasp neither labour-power (wh ich takes on the value-form, but is not produced within the capitalist economy) nor money (as the sole autonomous existence of the value-form: see Williams, 1992, 1998). Indeed, the failure of capital to fully determine these conditions of its existence is what enables the necessary privileging of abstract labour to be derived from the value-form as the one and only factor contributing to value-added in the valorisation process. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par Moseley\rquote s (1997) argument against the systematic dialectical determination o f the relation of labour to value fails entirely to understand the character of the systemic causation determining this result; as such, he does not engage the value-form argument but instead attacks a \lquote straw man\rquote . This approach to debate within Marxism p rovides an illuminating demonstration of an argument advanced throughout this dissertation. That is, without agreed criteria for evaluating arguments - and without arguments to justify those criteria - there is no way to resolve points of controversy, ei ther in discussions of Marx\rquote s value theory, or in discussions of reconstructions of it. In my view, one of the strong points of systematic dialectical theory \endash in comparison with most of the other theories examined here - is that it makes explicit the logic only implicit in }{\i Capital}{, and within which the substantive conclusions of Marx\rquote s value theory can be demonstrated with clarity and consistency. Clearly, if conceptual explicitness and clarity are eschewed, the Marxian inquiry into abstract-labour as value will remain intractable. \par }\pard\plain \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par {\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438977}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701605}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078491}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078940}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079283}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079549}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161222}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161305}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161343} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161497}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161630}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161708}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162018}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169611}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927320}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927551}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987934}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153947} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154125}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155243} \par \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid { \par \par 5. Conclusion{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438977}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701605}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078491}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078940}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079283}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079549}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161222}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161305}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161343} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493161497}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161630}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161708}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162018}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493169611}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927320}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927551}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987934}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153947} {\*\bkmkend _Toc498154125}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155243} \par }\pard\plain \s23\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {\lang1033 \par \par }{\cgrid0 The object of this dissertation was to inquire into }{\i\cgrid0 abstract-labour}{\cgrid0 as the source of value in a capitalist economy. I began with the proposition that schools of thought within Mar xism are distinguishable according to their views on the ontological existence of value and its relation to money. For Marxists, the core research question is whether value can exist prior to exchange as a physiological substance (abstract-labour) embodi e d in commodities, or whether it is a social dimension brought into existence only as the result of market activity? A corollary question concerns the measurement of value: is it measured as an amount of homogenous labour time expended in production, or i s it measured only when it is expressed in money as an exchange ratio between commodities? \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 \par }{A second objective of the dissertation was to engage an old question of Marxian political economy \endash about the \lquote subject matter\rquote of Marx\rquote s value theory - in a new wa y by making explicit the methodological (and ontological) commitments of various positions within the value debates. On this point, I have shown that serious disagreements on Marx\rquote s method underpin paradigmatic splits within Marxian value theory and that these are linked to disputes on the status and character of his value concepts}{\cs22\f6\fs28\lang1033\super \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s24\qj\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright \fs20\cgrid {\cs22\f6\cf1 \chftn }{ Considerable terminological confusion results from alternative understandings of the meaning of Marxian concepts. If the concept \lquote abstract labour\rquote is used by one writer to denote the homogenous physiological/ahistorical \lquote substance\rquote of value and by another writer to donate the social/specific form assumed by social labour in Capitalism, debate tends to degenerate rapidly into a dialogue of the deaf. To circumvent the problem, I have specified the meaning of terms as they are used in particular varieties of Marxian value theory, leaving open the question of Marx\rquote s own (ambiguous) use of these terms.}}}{. Although substantive differences between varieties of Marxian value theory are linked to questions of method, this is seldom made explicit and axiomatic and/or logical-histor ical methods remain, implicitly, at the core of what counts today as Marxian \lquote science\rquote . The dissertation set out to challenge the dominant view by deriving alternative criteria for judging Marx\rquote s (and Marxian) value theory, and for inquiring into the necessary interconnection between abstract-labour (as the source) and money (as the measure) of value.}{\cgrid0 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 \par }{To address these twin objectives, the second chapter posed a preliminary question concerning Marx\rquote s development of the \lquote abstract-labour/concrete-labour\rquote and \lquote value/use-value\rquote dualities. Marx clearly saw these dualities as crucial to his value theory, but what are we to make of them? Are they analytic or dialectical oppositions and how does the answer given to this question prejudice the way that Marxian val ue theory is understood? }{\cgrid0 A textual analysis of the starting point of }{\i\cgrid0 Capital}{\cgrid0 shows abstract-labour to be an ambiguous concept. First, it is unclear as to whether abstract-labour is a reductive category describing an amount of homogeneous labour embodied in commodities (a labour theory of value), or a dialectical universal describing a \lquote real abstraction\rquote from particular types of labour, established in exchange (a theory of social form). }{ Second, the shift in method that accompanies the transition from the double character of commodities and labour (in sections 1-2) to their determination by social form (in sections 3-4) retains an ontological commitment to the Ricardian concept of value \lquote conserved\rquote in the bodily form of commodities. If value is taken to be a pre-market property of commodities, then the social character of abstraction as the essence behind the reification of commodities produced capitalistically }{\i for sale}{ is difficult to interpret, as Backhaus (1969/1980) has pointed out. \par \par The ambivalence of Marx\rquote s derivation of core concepts in his opening chapter suggests that criteria for judging the \lquote subject matter\rquote of Marxian value theory cannot be derived by reference to the text of }{\i Capital}{ alone, since any explicit statement of method is missing from it. Moreover, there is evidence for the coexistence of two incompatible strands of thought in Marx\rquote s text. The first strand, associated with classical political economy, posits economic relations as the causal product of external determination, particular ly in nature; the concepts of abstract-labour and value are taken to be natural phenomena. The second strand, associated with Hegel, suspends }{\i a priori}{ presuppositions and understands economic relations only as a development within a social (systemic) set of interconnected determinations; the concepts of abstract-labour and value are social phenomena. The juxtaposition of these opposed ontological (and methodological) positions creates, in my view, an irresolvable tension; today, developments of Marxian v alue tend to collapse into one strand of Marx\rquote s thought or the other, giving rise to the \lquote technical\rquote and \lquote social\rquote paradigms described by (de Vroey, 1982).}{\cgrid0 \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The third chapter employed de Vroey\rquote s (1982) framework to explore a paradigmatic split within Marxism , according to whether value is interpreted as a natural law of labour allocation or social dimension based on the capital-labour relation. Crucially the technical paradigm conceptualises the economy as a system of production and defines the object of va l ue theory as the quantitative problem of allocating total social labour among alternative productive tasks; money does not matter, it is simply a veil over the exploitation of labour. In contrast, the social paradigm focuses on the necessity of a connect i on between the physical-technical dimension and the social dimension of economic activity. The relationship between production and circulation becomes central; money is the indispensable link between private and social labour in decentralised economy cha r acterised by the absence of any a priori rule of social cohesion. The integration of production and exchange within the circuit of capital brings the ontological question of value centre stage. Yet, paradoxically, most abstract-labour-embodied theories within the social paradigm seek to retain an emphasis on value-creation in production, albeit in the shape of \lquote ideal value\rquote that becomes \lquote actual value\rquote only in exchange. \par \par Is it plausible to argue that money is }{\i necessary}{ to the objective existence of value and in the same breath to advance a mode of argument where money is an }{\i independent}{ concept - introduced by Marx at a more concrete level of abstraction? I think not. The essence of Marx\rquote s (1863/1963) criticism of the physiocrats is precisely that capitalist production and circulation are }{\i not}{ independent spheres between which relations of dependence or interdependence can be established; on the contrary, they are interdependent and inseparable elements determined within a totality. A theory of social value seems to require a conceptualisation of this interdependence of value and price; that is, a theory of value as a }{\i process}{ that comes about only as a result of the movement of capital through differentiated moments of the circuit as a whole. \par \par }\pard\plain \s23\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {The critique advanced in the final section of the third chapter focused attention on the failure within both \lquote technical\rquote and \lquote social\rquote strands of Marxian thought to recognise the impediments to conceptual understanding that result from a retention of abstract-labour as an }{\i embodied}{ value substance (whether physiological or social). The inherent weakness of both schools is a reliance on the Ricardian model of essence and appearance in which the essential independence of value (essence) and money (form) operates to privilege \lquote value\rquote creation in production and \lquote conservation\rquote in exchange. Although more sophisticated varieties of the abstract-labour-embodied value theory recognise a co-constitution of value and price, they nevertheless deny that money (the value-form) has any }{\i ontological}{ significance with respect to the determination of economic activity.}{\cgrid0 As a result of this value-price dichotomy, the imperative of valorisation (the quantitative expansion of value) driving the capitalist system is inadequately captured within these theories. \par \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid {\cgrid0 Chapter four}{ presented several arguments for a systematic dialectical reconstruction of Marxian value theory without recourse to a concept of abstract-labour as the homogenous property embodied in commodities in production. In this chap ter, I set out to show that what is gained by dropping the concept of abstract-labour as \lquote substance\rquote of value is a coherent integration of capitalist production and exchange as }{\i interrelated}{ moments within the object-totality, constituted by the movement of capital, as an interconnected whole. Two important new insights emerge from current reconstructions of abstract labour. First, labour power is produced outside value relations; it is not a commodity and its value has no systematic relation to its (non- e xistent) price of production. The privileging of labour power as the one and only source of value-added in the valorisation process is derived from its unique status as an input to production produced outside capitalist value relations. Second, labour p ower is not purchased unless individual capitalists expect that the labour extracted from labour power will contribute more to the value of output (in money) than it cost (in money). Reuten\rquote s (1988a) felicitous coining \lquote pre-commensuration \rquote makes this double character of the labour process clear. \par \par The substantive conclusion of the systematic dialectical value-form theory is that abstract-labour is neither substance nor cause of value; in fact, value has no substantive content. Thus, for Reuten and Williams (1989), }{\i abstract labour is value measured in money}{ (mL). What this means is that abstract-labour becomes a \lquote social fact\rquote only in money, which is the sole autonomous means determining the production and distribution of use-values and the allocation of lab our among alternative uses in a capitalist economy. The essential point is that causality is systemic: the relation of value to labour is constituted by the subordination of productive activity (the technical labour process) to the pursuit of profit. \par \par The methodological conclusion is that the interconnections of core elements within the capitalist system can be determined only with }{\i logical}{ necessity. This entails an abandonment of science seen as an exploration of substructural essences (labour-values) b eneath phenomenal appearances (prices). Marx undermined his own use of this kind of metaphor by repeatedly pointing out that no matter how deeply you dig into the commodity, you can find no trace of value in it. The negation of the metaphor is reinforce d by the fact that }{\i Capital}{ begins with a micro-level examination of exchange as the basic constituent of a system of social interconnections. To ignore systemic determination is to take a step back to the substance metaphor in discussing value theory, and this leads inevitably to a Ricardian regress (Reuten, 1993). \par }{\fs20 \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx142\tx357\adjustright {Given these substantive and methodological conclusions, the core research question posed at the beginning of the dissertation can now be restated: must Marx\rquote s abstract-labour (embodied) theory o f value be abandoned and Marxian categories reconstructed to provide a systemic determination of abstract-labour as social value? Here, I have answered unequivocally: yes. Firstly, a systematic dialectical reconstruction of Marx\rquote s categories preserves th e main insights of the abstract-labour-embodied theory, especially the demonstration of labour as the only source of value-added in the valorisation process. Secondly, it facilitates a better grasp of the contradictory character of }{\i contemporary capitalism}{ as a system increasingly dominated by the needs of financial and banking capital, systemically determined by an imperative to valorise and a tendency to subsume all that is useful under the value form. It is this }{\i historical }{ character of value as self-val orisation that the abstract-labour-embodied value theory cannot fully grasp, committed as it is to a conception of value created in production and justified, axiomatically or historically, as a principle of movement through history. \par }\pard \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright { \par \par \par \par \par \par \par }\pard\plain \s1\sb240\sa60\keepn\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\outlinelevel0\adjustright \b\f1\fs28\lang3081\kerning28\cgrid {{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490896811}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc490897336}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491152984}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491154485} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491155250}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491165961}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166054}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166118}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166182}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166246}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166310}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166374}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166494} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491166918}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167521}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167657}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167916}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491167980}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168297}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168411}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491168977}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169484} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169664}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169892}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491169975}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170156}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170285}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170352}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170580}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491170916}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171538} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171647}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171758}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171825}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171892}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491171958}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172024}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172435}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172501}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172888} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491172954}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173352}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491173492}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491175167}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491176136}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177165}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177492}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491177715}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178039} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178144}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178328}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178511}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc491178763}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492438978}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc492701606}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078492}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493078941}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079284} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc493079550}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161223}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161306}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161344}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161498}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161631}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493161709}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493162019}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc493169612} {\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927321}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497927552}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc497987935}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498153948}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498154126}{\*\bkmkstart _Toc498155244}References{\*\bkmkend _Toc490896811}{\*\bkmkend _Toc490897336}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491152984 }{\*\bkmkend _Toc491154485}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491155250}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491165961}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166054}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166118}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166182}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166246}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166310}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166374} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491166494}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491166918}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167521}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167657}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167916}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491167980}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168297}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168411}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491168977} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491169484}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169664}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169892}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491169975}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170156}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170285}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170352}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170580}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491170916} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491171538}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171647}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171758}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171825}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171892}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491171958}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172024}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172435}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172501} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491172888}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491172954}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173352}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491173492}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491175167}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491176136}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177165}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177492}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491177715} {\*\bkmkend _Toc491178039}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178144}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178328}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178511}{\*\bkmkend _Toc491178763}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492438978}{\*\bkmkend _Toc492701606}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078492}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493078941} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493079284}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493079550}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161223}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161306}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161344}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161498}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161631}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493161709}{\*\bkmkend _Toc493162019} {\*\bkmkend _Toc493169612}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927321}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497927552}{\*\bkmkend _Toc497987935}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498153948}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498154126}{\*\bkmkend _Toc498155244} \par }\pard\plain \s16\qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \lang3081\cgrid { \par \par Arnason, J. P. (1984), \lquote Contemporary Approaches to Marx \endash Reconstruction and Deconstruction\rquote , }{\i Thesis Eleven}{, }{\b 9,}{ 52-72. \par \par Arthur, C. J. (1979a), \lquote Dialectics and Labour\rquote , in J. Mepham and D. H. Ruben (Eds.), }{\i Issues in Marxist Philosophy}{ (Volume 1: Dialectics and Method), Harvester, Brighton, pp.87-116. \par \par _____ (1979b), \lquote Dialectic of the Value-Form\rquote , in D. Elson (Ed.), }{\i Value: the Representation of Labour in Capitalism}{, CSE Books, London, pp.67-81. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1993), \lquote Hegel\rquote s Logic and Marx\rquote s Capital\rquote , in F. Moseley (Ed.), }{\i Marx\rquote s Method in \lquote Capital\rquote : A Reexamination,}{ Humanities Press, N. J., pp.63-88. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1997), \lquote Against the Logical-Historical Method: Dialectical Derivation versus Linear Logic\rquote , in F. Moseley and M. Campbell (Eds.), }{\i New Investigations of Marx\rquote s Method}{, Humanity Books, New York, pp.9-37. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1998a), \lquote Systematic Dialectic\rquote , }{\i Science and Society}{, }{\b 62}{ }{\b (3),}{ 447-459. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1998b), \lquote The Fluidity of Capital and the Logic of the Concept\rquote , in C. J. Arthur and G. Reuten (Eds.), }{\i The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume 11 of Marx\rquote s \lquote Capital\rquote }{ , London, Macmillan, pp.95-128. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1999), \lquote Napoleoni on Labour and Exploitation\rquote , }{\i Rivista di Politica Economica}{, }{\b 4-5}{, 141- 163. \par \par }{\cgrid0 _____ (2000), 'From the Critique of Hegel to the Critique of Capital', in T. Burns and I. Fraser (Eds.), }{\i\cgrid0 The Hegel-Marx Connection}{\cgrid0 , Macmillan and St. Martins, London and New York, pp.105-130.}{ \par \par Arthur, C. J. and G. Reuten (Eds.) (1998), }{\i The Circulation of Capital: Essays on Volume 11 of Marx\rquote s \lquote Capital\rquote }{, London, Macmillan. \par \par Backhaus, H-G. (1969), \lquote On the Dialectics of the Value-Form\rquote , English translation, }{\i Thesis Eleven}{, 1980, }{\b 1 (1),}{ 99-120. \par \par Banaji, J. (1979), \lquote From the Commodity to Capital: Hegel\rquote s Dialectic in Marx\rquote s }{\i Capital}{\rquote , in D. Elson (Ed.), }{\i Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism}{, CSE Books, London, pp.14-45. \par \par Bellofiore, R. (1989), \lquote A Monetary Labour Theory of Value\rquote , }{\i Review of Radical Political Economics}{, }{\b 21 (1-2)}{, 1-25. \par \par _____ (1998a), \lquote The Concept of Labour in Marx\rquote , }{\i mimeo}{, published originally in Italian in }{\i Ricerche Economiche}{, }{\b XXXIII (3-4)}{, 1979. \par \par _____ (Ed.) (1998b), }{\i Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal}{ (Volume 1: Method, Value and Money), Macmillan, London and St. Martin\rquote s, New York. \par \par _____ (1999), \lquote The Value of Labour Value. The Italian Debate on Marx: 1968-1976\rquote , }{\i Rivista di Politica Economica}{, }{\b 4-5}{, 31-70. \par \par Bellofiore, R. and R. Finelli (1998), \lquote Capital, Labour and Time\rquote , in R. Bellofiore (Ed.), }{\i Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal}{ (Volume 1 Method, Value and Money), Macmillan, London and St. Martin\rquote s, New York, pp. 48-74. \par \par Blaug, M. (Ed.) (1991), }{\i The Historiography of Economics}{, Edward Elgar Publishers, Aldershot, England and Brookfield, USA, pp.ix-xi. \par \par Clarke, S. (1980), \lquote The Value of Value: a Review of \ldblquote Rereading Capital\rdblquote \rquote , }{\i Capital and Class}{, }{\b 10,}{ 1-17. Reprinted in S. Mohun (Ed.), }{\i Debates in Value Theory,}{ Macmillan, London and St. Martin\rquote s, New York, 1994, pp.129-148. \par \par }{\cgrid0 Colletti, L. (1972), }{\i\cgrid0 From Rousseau to Lenin, }{\cgrid0 New Left Books, London. \par }{ \par }{\cgrid0 De Vroey, M. (1982), 'On the Obsolescence of the Marxian Theory of Value', }{\i\cgrid0 Capital and Class,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 17,}{\cgrid0 34-59. \par }{ \par }{\cgrid0 Dobb, M. H. (1940), }{\i\cgrid0 Political Economy and Capitalism, }{\cgrid0 Routledge, London. \par }{ \par }{\cgrid0 Eldred, M. (1984), 'A Reply to Gleicher', }{\i\cgrid0 Capital and Class,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 23, }{\cgrid0 135-40.}{ Reprinted in S. Mohun (Ed.), }{\i Debates in Value Theory,}{ Macmillan, London and St. Martin\rquote s, New York, 1994, pp.199-204. }{\cgrid0 \par \par Eldred, M. and M. Hanlon (1981), 'Reconstructing Value-form Analysis', }{\i\cgrid0 Capital and Class,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 13}{\cgrid0 , 24-60 \par \par Eldred, M., Hanlon, M., Kleiber, L. and M. Roth (1982), 'Reconstructing Value-form Analysis 1: the Analysis of Commodities and Money', }{\i\cgrid0 Thesis Eleven,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 4,}{\cgrid0 170-188. \par \par Eldred, M., Hanlon, M., Kleiber, L. and M. Roth (1983), 'Reconstructing Value-form Analysis 2: the Analysis of the Capital-Wage-Labour Relation and Capitalist Production', }{\i\cgrid0 Thesis Eleven,}{\b\cgrid0 7,}{\cgrid0 87-111. \par \par }{Elson, D. (1979a), \lquote The Value Theory of Labour\rquote , in D. Elson (Ed.), }{\i Value: the Representation of Labour in Capitalism}{, CSE Books, London, pp.115-180.\par \par _____ (1997) \lquote Abstract Labour: Substance or Form? A critique of the value-form interpretation of Marx\rquote s theory\rquote , paper presented to the International Symposium of Marxian Theory, Tepozlan, Mexico, May 1997. \par \par Moseley, F. and M. Campbell (Eds.), (1997), }{\i New Investigations of Marx\rquote s Method}{, Humanity Books, New York. \par \par Murray, P. (1993), \lquote The Necessity of Money: How Hegel Helped Marx Surpass Ricardo\rquote s Theory of Value\rquote , in F. Moseley (Ed.), }{\i Marx\rquote s Method in \lquote Capital\rquote : A Reexamination,}{ Humanities Press, N. J., pp.37-61. \par \par _____ (1997), \lquote Redoubled Empiricism: The Place of Social Form and Formal Causality in Marxian Theory\rquote , in F. Moseley and M. Campbell (Eds.), }{\i New Investigations of Marx\rquote s Method}{, Humanity Books, New York, pp.38-65. \par \par Postone, Moishe (1993), }{\i Time, Labor and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx\rquote s Critical Theory}{, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. \par \par Reuten, G. (1988a), \lquote Value as Social Form\rquote , in M. Williams (Ed.), }{\i Value, Social Form and the State}{, Macmillan, London, pp.42-61. \par \par }{\ul }{ (1988b), \lquote The Money Expression of Value and the Credit System; a Value-Form Theoretic Outline\rquote , }{\i Capital and Class}{, }{\b 35,}{ 121-141. \par \par _____ (1993), \lquote The Difficult Labour of a Theory of Social Value: Metaphors and Systematic Dialectics at the Beginning of Marx\rquote s }{\i Capital}{\rquote , in F. Moseley (Ed.),}{\i Marx\rquote s Method in \lquote Capital\rquote : A Reexamination,}{ Humanities Press, N. J., pp.89-113. \par \par _____ (1995), \lquote Conceptual Collapses: a Note on Value-form Theory\rquote , }{\i Review of Radical Political Economics}{, }{\b 27 (3),}{ 104-110. \par \par }{\cgrid0 _____ (1998), 'Destructive Creativity: Institutional Arrangements of Banking and the Logic of Capitalist Technical Change in the Perspective of Marx's 1894 Law of Profit', in Bellofiore, R. (Ed.), }{\i\cgrid0 Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal}{ \cgrid0 }{(Volume 2: Profits, Prices and Dynamics), Macmillan and St. Martin\rquote s, London and New York, }{\cgrid0 pp.117-193.}{ \par \par _____ (1999), \lquote The Source versus Measure Obstacle in Value Theory\rquote , }{\i Rivista di Politica Economica}{, }{\b 4-5,}{ 87-116. \par \par Reuten, G. & M. Williams (1989), }{\i Value-Form and the State: the Tendencies of Accumulation and the Determination of Economic Policy in Capitalist Society}{, London and New York, Routledge, Parts 1-2, pp. 1-100. \par \par Rubin, I. I. (1928), }{\i Essays on Marx\rquote s Theory of Value }{(1928), Black & Red, Detroit, 1972, Chapter 14, pp. 131-158. \par \par _____ (1927), \lquote Abstract Labour and Value in Marx\rquote s System\rquote (lecture, June, 1927), }{\i Capital and Class}{, 1978, }{\b 5}{, 107-139. \par \par Sekine, T. T. (1998), \lquote The Dialectic of \ldblquote Capital\rdblquote : an Unoist Interpretation\rquote , }{\i Science and Society}{, }{\b 62 (3),}{ 434-445. \par \par Sohn-Rethel, A. (1978), }{\i Intellectual and Manual Labour: a Critique of Epistemology}{, Macmillan, London. \par \par Smith, T. (1990), }{\i The Logic of Marx\rquote s \lquote Capital\rquote : Replies to Hegelian Criticisms}{, State University of New York Press, Albany. \par \par }{\cgrid0 _____ (1993), \lquote Marx's "Capital" and Hegelian Dialectical Logic\rquote , in F. Moseley (Ed.), }{\i\cgrid0 Marx's Method in "Capital": A Reexamination}{\cgrid0 , Humanities Press, New Jersey, pp.15-36. \par \par _____ (1998), 'Value theory and dialectics', }{\i\cgrid0 Science and Society,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 62 (3),}{\cgrid0 pp. 460-470. \par \par Steedman, I. (1977), }{\i\cgrid0 Marx After Sraffa, }{\cgrid0 New Left Books, London. \par }\pard\plain \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\tx357\adjustright \cf1\lang3081\cgrid { \par Sweezy, P. (1946), }{\i The Theory of Capitalist Development}{, Dennis Dobson, London, Chapter 2, pp.23-40. \par \par }\pard \qj\sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brsp360 \tx357\adjustright {Williams, M. (1992)}{\cgrid0 'Marxists on Money, Value and Labour-Power: a Response to Cartelier', }{\i\cgrid0 Cambridge Journal of Economics,}{\cgrid0 }{ \b\cgrid0 16, }{\cgrid0 439-445. \par \par _____ (1998), 'Money and Labour-Power: Marx after Hegel, or Smith plus Sraffa?' }{\i\cgrid0 Cambridge Journal of Economics,}{\cgrid0 }{\b\cgrid0 22, }{\cgrid0 187-198. \par }\pard \sl480\slmult1\nowidctlpar\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw15\brsp360 \tx357\adjustright {\cgrid0 \par }\pard \nowidctlpar\widctlpar\adjustright { \par }}
- [OPE-L:5236] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative, (continued)
- [OPE-L:5236] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative, Gerald_A_Levy Thu 22 Mar 2001, 12:33 GMT
- [OPE-L:5243] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative, Steve Keen Fri 23 Mar 2001, 22:21 GMT
- [OPE-L:5222] Re: An Introduction to Marx's 'Capital' out of India, Paul Zarembka Wed 21 Mar 2001, 16:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:5219] Response to Andy Brown: Marx's and Marxian Paradigms, Nicola Taylor Wed 21 Mar 2001, 02:32 GMT
- [OPE-L:5220] Re: Response to Andy Brown: Marx's and Marxian Paradigms, Nicola Taylor Wed 21 Mar 2001, 03:32 GMT
- [OPE-L:5215] Re: Re: Re: waste, value, and potential, glevy Tue 20 Mar 2001, 17:54 GMT
- [OPE-L:5211] capital form and the state, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari Tue 20 Mar 2001, 08:30 GMT
- [OPE-L:5209] [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative, glevy Mon 19 Mar 2001, 17:59 GMT
- [OPE-L:5218] Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative, Steve Keen Tue 20 Mar 2001, 20:10 GMT