Hi Andy, and thanks for taking an interest. Unfortunately this is a bad time for me to get embroiled in complex debates (and the issues you raise are very complex). I have *huge* teaching comitments this semester (8 classes a week) and am already behind on my Phd. The best I can do at the moment is attach a copy of my thesis (last years) which deals precisely with the challenges you set out below. Btw, you will find your name in the "Acknowledgements", as will many other list members - testament (I think) to the ongoing usefulness of this list, both as a resource and debating forum. I welcome critical comments on my work, either onlist, or off. As well as any constructive suggestions re improvements (or oversights). It should be safe to open the attachment, as I have recently sent it to others without complaints. comradely Nicky ---------------------------- > On 16 Mar 2001, at 2:31, Nicola Taylor wrote: > > > However, I also consider that crucial differences > > among Marxists stem from irreconcilable > ambiguities in > > Marx's own texts that render any definitive > reading of > > Marx's theory of value, near impossible. Andy B's > > take on socially necessary labour, imo, stems from > a > > paradigmatic split between those who hold to an > > abstract-labour embodied interpretation of Marxian > > value theory, and those who do not. Or, from a > > different angle, the split might be seen to be > between > > those who read into Marx an ontological role for > > *money* (eg credit) as a crucial determinant of > > economic activity in a value-form determined > system > > (capitalism), and those who do not. There seems > to be > > no way around this problem except to make one's > own > > reading of Marx explicit. > > You paint a very post-modern picture here! If it > were true and if > Marx is the best presentation of the CMP around then > I think we > may as well unsubscribe and forget any attempt at > scientific > debate. > > Value-form and systematic dialectic interpretations > of Marx find > some support in Marx but *also* clearly disagree > with Marx on > important points (eg on when and if ab SNL should be > introduced) > > More 'traditional' embodied labour theories find > support from Marx > and *also* clearly depart from many of Marx's > statements in > Capital...witness the transformation problem. > > *Neither* therefore accords / agrees with > universally recognised > aspects of Marx's own view. This is not unambigous. > It is clear. > > *If* there were no other view then we would indeed > have to live with > this unhappy situation and, perhaps, take R&Ws line > on Marx's > 'Ricardian hangover'. But there *are* other views. > > I would claim to support an interpretation which > does not suffer > from the major shortcomings that must be > acknowledged in the two > views mentioned above. I would suggest that the work > of Ben Fine > and colleagues on the transformation problem and the > TRPF > (distinguiishin OCC VCC and TCC) is basically > correct and fits > Marx better than other views. Sure this needs > debating - but let us > not undermine the foundations for such debate before > we begin! > > Note that, on my interpretation, this work holds > that money is > important *and* affirms that value is congealed > abstract labour. So > your dichotomy is a false one. > > Best wishes, > > Andy > ===== Nicola Taylor Division of Economics Murdoch University Australia Telephone: 61-8-9385 1130 ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT