[OPE-L:2267] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2000 - 11:52:58 EST

[ 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