Re: (OPE-L) Re: is value labour?

[Paul Zarembka <zarembka@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, my typo.  It should have been "neither Rubin nor Kliman", not
Laibman (but he doesn't wish to confuse value with exchange value either).

Paul

***********************************************************************
"Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists", Vol. 20
RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

On Fri, 23 May 2003 glevy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Paul Z wrote on May 23:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Did you mean to write "neither Rubin nor Laibman nor Kliman"
> or when you wrote 'Laibman' was that a typo and did you intend
> to write 'Kliman'?
>
> I don't recall, off-hand, the title of the paper by David L
> that included a critique of other interpretations, including
> VFT and the TSSI, but I recall that it was presented at a
> IWGVT a few years ago -- although it's not at the IWGVT web
> site, I believe.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
>