[ show plain text ]
Hi Riccardo,
The find in Sraffa is interesting. I would be interested in the reference.
My first thought is to doubt that Sraffa has the same in mind as VFT.
Could you give me the full references of your three papers, none of which, I
am ashamed to admit, have I yet read.
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.]
----- Original Message -----
From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it>
To: Michael J Williams <mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk>; OPE-L
<OPE-L@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:42 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2252] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories
> Mike,
>
> this post needs a 'true' answer. I take it in my files, and hope to
> return to it later. You may be surprised, or happy, by the fact that I
> found in Sraffa papers in Cambridge a phrase very similar to your 'the
> essence is the system!', referred to labour as the substance of value in
> Marx. In a sense, we agree because I have a notion of capitalist labour as
> abstraction in motion, going on from labour market (labour power as
> abstract labour), production (living labour as abstract labour), commodity
> exchange (dead labour as abstract labour, and money as the value-form).
All
> these must have some quantitative (not only monetary) counterpart. Have
you
> read my paper with Finelli, the one on the transformation from the EEA
> conference, and the paper on Napoleoni? There's something more about all
> this stuff.
>
> At 23:08 +0100 19-01-2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it>
> >To: Michael J Williams <mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk>; OPE-L
> ><OPE-L@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 2:41 PM
> >Subject: [OPE-L:2228] Re: : : : value-form theories
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Substance is not an unproblematical concept. I would need you to unpack
what
> >you have in mind by it. As some of my other recent posts indicated, if we
> >are committed to a social substance then it is not some formless simple
> >content in itself that is then to be grasped by a form, but rather is in
> >itself a complex system. Abstract labour as the content of Value, if we
must
> >think in these terms, is ultimately characterisable only as entailing the
> >whole capitalist commodity system. Provocatively, the essence is the
system!
> >>
> >> 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).
> >
> >I do not disagree with this as it stands
> >
> >>THIS POTENTIAL ABSTRACT LABOUR
> >> MUST BE MEASURABLE IN TIME BEFORE EXCHANGE.
> >
> >I do not see how or why - and as far as I can see, neither can Rubin,
whom
> >you claim VFT foolishly goes beyond in this respect.
> >
> >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.]
>
>
>
>
> 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