[OPE-L:2219] Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

From: riccardo bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 04:12:45 EST

[ show plain text ]

I don't understand very well this post, however, just to put ofrward a pris
de position:

(i) I fully agree that the determination of prices is systemic

(ii) I fully agree that Marx's is not mainly a theory of relative prices.

But no Marx without a labour theory of value in which the adjective is not
labour. As I repeated some time ago: if VFT convince me of his criticism of
value as substance, I would rather become a Cartelier supporter, rather
than a Reuten-Williams supporter.



At 17:34 +0100 17-01-2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
>I've checked out the Carchedi & Haan piece, section 6
>----- 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
>> 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?
>And it does indeed not meet the challenge of VFT: the determination of
>exchange ratios and prices is systemic. Then labour is indeed allocated (not
>'distributed') to different activities, as grounded in Markets, iaw the
>dictates of the imperatives of the value-form=> vaorisation => capital
>accumulation. In this process, specific labours a really abstracted into
>abstract labour.
>VFT does indeed contain no specific theory of relative prices, and may
>therefore subsume some variant of orthodox price theory (neo-classical or
>post-Keynesian) set within the context of a value-form system. NB that the
>ideological force of these theories lies specifically in their systematic
>partiality, rather than in there empirical inadequacy for the operation of
>markets considered (ideologically) in relative isolation. In particular, in
>their neglect or rejection of the source of value-added in current labour.
>None of this makes VFT a 'metaphor' to any greater extent than any
>conceptual structure (i.e. words are not literally the same thing as that
>which they denote).
>This section gives the appearance of a last minute add-on, quite
>understandable perhaps in response to a referee or editor's comments.
>Dr Michael Williams
>Economics and Social Sciences
>De Montfort University
>Milton Keynes
>fax: 0870 133 1147
>[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
>you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]

        Riccardo Bellofiore
Office: Department of Economics
        Piazza Rosate, 2
        I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: Via Massena, 51
        I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
        +39 035 277501 (dept.)
        +39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: +39 035 249975

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST