[OPE-L:5665] de-bunking the de-bunk (re VFT)?

[glevy@xxxxxxxxx]

Re Chris's [5662]:

A question for Steve K:

Reuten-Williams in _Value-Form and the State_ and elsewhere have
developed a theory in which (amongst other things):

* the theory is limited in scope to the analysis of capitalism (thus  I interpreted Chris's most recent post to mean that the "infinite
regression critique"  does not touch VFT since VFT, unlike some variants of LET, does not conceptualize value as a trans-historical concept);

* there is a relation (an identity?) between value and money that
is not the case with (most) LETs;

* labour power is not a commodity (on this point Ajit and R-W
agree);

* the money commodity is relegated to understanding a historically-
specific period of capitalism and is in no way viewed as "essential"
for capitalism.

QUESTION: Given the above, is there anything at all of significance
left of the "Debunking" critique that applies to VFT?

(NB: issues, including the 'transformation problem', that concern
the quantitative dimensions of Marx's theory of value are not
applicable to VFT given their understanding of the relation of
value and money.)

Perhaps you could post a "correction" on your WWW site and place
VFT in the last chapter of the 2nd edition (assuming that there
wil be a 2nd edition)?

In solidarity, Jerry