[ show plain text ]
DEAR MIKE,
ONLY TWO COMMENTS IN CAPITAL BLOCKS.
At 13:25 +0100 19-01-2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
>A quick further response to Riccardo:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it>
>To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 9:17 AM
>Subject: [OPE-L:2218] Re: : value-form theories
>
>
>>I have argued that Marx tried an
>>argument about value where money is the form of value and labour is its
>>substance. The latter in Marx must be measurable in hours (as Marx said in
>>the last version he revised, the French one) - and, in some meaningful
>>theoretical sense, must be measurable before exchange. In Marx's argument,
>>however, actual value comes into being in exchange, so any argument who
>>says that abstract labour is fully constituted before exchange is plainly
>>wrong.
>
>Right-on to this last.
>
>But as to what comes before, it is only the material-technical aspect of the
>labour process that is, abstractly abstractly (sic) and indeed approximately
>quantifiable in person-hours. If anything is the 'substance' of value (and I
>have already indicating my scepticism about 'substance talk' in this
>context) it is abstract labour - that has only a social existence and
>therefore only a social measure.
AGREED. IN MARX'S CAPITAL VOL. I, HOWEVER, THE COMMODITY, ONCE EXCHANGED
WITH GOLD AS MONEY ON THE MARKET, ALLOWS THE MEASURE IN HOURS. THE CONCRETE
LABOUR PRODUCING GOLD, WHICH REPRESENTED THE ABSTRACT LABOUR OF THE
COMMODITY, IS MEASURABLE IN HOURS. WHAT A MIRACLE! PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL AT
THE SAME TIME!! THE PROBlEM ARISES WITHOUT THE MONEY COMMODITY. IS IT
MEANINGFUL A SOCIAL MEASURE OF ABSTRACT LABOUR IN TIME UNITS? CAN WE DEFINE
IT? I'M NOT SURE. BUT IF THE ANSWER IS "NO", THEN I INSIST THAT WE SHOULD
LEAVE ASIDE MARX AND CONSTRUCT A NEW THEORY OF WHICH MARX MAY BE A (MORE OR
LESS) DISTANT ANCESTOR. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. SIMPLY IT IS NOT MY
PROJECT. WHAT AMAZES ME IS THAT VFT THEORISTS WANT TO HAVE MARX'S VALUE
FORM WITHOUT THE SUBSTANCE. IN DOING THAT THEY ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE
AND MORE SUBTLE AND SOPHISTICATE, NOT ALWAYS IN THE GOOD SENSE OF THE
ADJECTIVES.
>
>>At the same time, I think that VFT radicalised a (correct) Rubin's argument
>>which in the end destroys Marx, and which breaks with Rubin himself. My
>>point of view is based on the idea, to put it briefly, that the key problem
>>in Marx is not in the transformation of value into prices, but rather in
>>the theory of money. What should be done is to develop an argument which
>>allows to maintain the labour theory of value in a theoretical setting
>>where the theory of money is not based on a money-commodity, either in the
>>first or in the last instance
>
>I hope to get back to this 'over-radicalisation' thesis later. But as I see
>it, VFT does indeed provide an attempt at what you are seeking in this last
>sentence?
I AGREE WITH YOUR QUESTION MARK. I WOULD ADD ANOTHER COUPLE(OF QUESTION
MARKS). I THINK THAT THE DIFFERENCE AMONG US REGARDS ABSTRACTION. I THINK
IT IS GOING ON ALREADY IN THE PRODUCTION PROCESS. THAT THE *SAME* LABOUR IS
CONCRETE AND (POTENTIALLY) ABSTRACT, IN THE SAME 'TIME' IN PRODUCTION (I AM
LEAVING ASIDE THE REDUCTION ISSUE HERE). THIS POTENTIAL ABSTRACT LABOUR
MUST BE MEASURABLE IN TIME BEFORE EXCHANGE. OTHERWISE MARX BREAKS OUT IN A
CONTRADICTORY MIXTURE OF A RICARDIAN SOCIALIST AND AN HEGELIAN
ULTRA-KEYNESIAN.
>Comradely greetings,
riccardo
>____________________
>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.]
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