[ show plain text ]
And I do not understand very well your response. I for one, hold to an
abstract labour theory of value. Labour as grasped by the value-form is the
source of all increase in Value. This is first of all a commonplace of
Classical Political Economy, and more pertinently is demonstrated in the
systematic dialectical presentation - not as early as Marx seems to do it in
Capital, but later, with the development of money and then Capital.
But, as I have just argued in other messages, I cannot grasp Value as a
Since Reuten-Williams are not running for office, I am not sure what your
remarks about being a 'supporter' are intended to convey? Except perhaps
exasperation, perhaps understandable in the light of the time pressures you
seem to be under?
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
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.]
----- Original Message -----
From: riccardo bellofiore <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Michael J Williams <email@example.com>;
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 9:12 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2219] Re: : : value-form theories
> I don't understand very well this post, however, just to put forward a
> 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
> value as substance, I would rather become a Cartelier supporter, rather
> than a Reuten-Williams supporter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST