[ show plain text ]
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Michael J Williams wrote:
> As Chris has pointed out, VFT is not a 'response' to
> Steedman in this sense. It is a (perhaps a number of
> differing) interpretations and developments of Marx's theory
> united by a rejection of the coherence of any embodied
> labour theory of value, including the one that Steedman
> criticises.
Rejecting the _coherence_ of "any embodied labour theory of
value" is a very strong claim (as opposed to, say, rejecting the
empirical adequacy of such theories, or claiming that they
cannot be made consistent with the axiom of profit-rate
equalization). How would you justify the charge of incoherence?
Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:09 EST