Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:4854]: > Jerry wrote: "Just as clearly, Marx's theory of value > can't reasonably be described as being > a "new value theory"." > Not clear to me. In fact, that's what I meant by the > new value theory. OK, well at least that mystery is solved. It is true, of course, that "new" and "old" are relative and imprecise terms. Yet, most would agree that Marx's theories can no longer be described as being "new". (Indeed, original editions of his writings are sometimes sold in antique shops and antiquarian bookstores). > (snip, JL) It > was a new rediscovery. "Rediscovery" [of Marx's value theory], rather than "new theory", seems to be the word most consistent with what advocates of the TSSI have written elsewhere about that interpretation. I gather, then, that you claim that it was Marx's value theory rather than more recent "Marxian theories of value" that represented a Copernican revolution. Thus, the "Copernican revolution" in value theory happened in the 19th Century (even if that wasn't fully appreciated at that time). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST