[ show plain text ]
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2000 3:14 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:2183] Re: value-form theories
> Re Riccardo's [OPE-L:2174]:
> Isn't this basically the same criticism as that made by Carchedi & de Haan
> in _Capital & Class_ (57; Autumn 1995) in Section 6 of their article,
> "Value as a Metaphor?" (pp. 100-102)? Yet, as I recall, didn't
> you challenge Mino on just this point on OPE-L (in November or December,
> '95; I don't recall the post #) in which you said that you didn't think
> that this section of their article was "fair" to VFT?
I must revisit this C&C exchange (imagine! someone being unfair to VFT!).
But imo 'losing' substance is a strength not a weakness of VFT. The
'content' of the value-form is indeed the whole value-form determined system
presented from the value-form as its starting point. But there is
tendentially at the core of that system not something substantial, such as
the creative interaction of freely associating people with nature, but
rather a ... void (to use the terminology in the Althusser Early Writings to
which Chris recently pointed us - Althusser, L. 1997. The Spectre of Hegel:
early writings, London/New York: Verso).
As to the notion that Abstract Labour is a substance, flowing hither and
thither and 'congealing' (apparently without aid of changing temperature,
humidity or pressure ...) in Commodities, I hope to deal with this in
response to Andrew B very soon.
comradely greetings
Michael
____________________
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
UK
fax: 0870 133 1147
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST