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

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

Re: is value labour?

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

Paul C.,

I'm going through this exchange, I notice you wrote:

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Paul Cockshott wrote:

> My opinion is that the value form theorists have retained the
> the Ricardian identity between value and exchange value. Paradoxically
> for people who want to emphasise the distinction between
> Ricardo and Marx, their problematic actually makes it
> harder for them to perform the sort of comparative analysis
> of historical forms that Marx pioneered.
>
> Value is first identified with exchange value, ...

But neither Rubin nor Laibman do this.  See:

Rubin, I. I. 1927, "Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System", translated
by K. Gilbert, Capital and Class, Volume 5, Summer 1978, pp.
107-139.

Kliman, A. J. 2000, Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value", Historical
Materialism, No. 6, pp. 89-113.

In fact, they may a big deal out of the difference between value and the
form of value in exchange value.

Paul Z.
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]