Re Ajit's [5558]: OK, I re-checked your original post [5541]. As you wrote, you did not refer to a 'traditional interpretation' (this was Rakesh's paraphrase). You referred to two positions -- 1 of which (the one that you sought to critique) was the 'predominant interpretation of the first chapter of *Capital*". You seem to think I am confused -- on this point you are correct. I am confused *by what you wrote* and hence asked what I thought to be a very simple and straight-forward question in 5557. To understand the source of my confusion let's look again at parts of your original contribution to this thread in 5541. In 5541, which btw was a response to a post by Howard Engelskirchen, you wrote: > Of course, i don't know the details of what > has gone on before but from what I see it seems > the debate is hovering around the > Hegelian interpretation of value and value-form. So, it would seem that you believed your comments are supposed to have some bearing on VFT. OK, but then you go on to write: > The first thing we have to establish is what is this > "real" but "non-empirical" > thing called "value"? There are two ways of > approaching this elusive thing "value" > by taking Marx's writings as a guide. One way is > to see it in terms of social > division of labor, i.e. somehow value refers to > the division of total social labor into various > different sectors, and exchange- > value or the prices of production is > the form the value takes. The other way is to > approach it as a representation of > technology of production, which is the underlying > determinant of exchange value or > prices of production. There are *more than 2* ways of approaching value, though, using Marx's writings as a guide. What you seem to be confronting, then, is *not VFT* but: > Now, for the first approach, which would be the > predominant interpretation of the > first chapter of *Capital*, yet *very clearly* a VFT reading of the first chapter is *by no means* the 'predominant interpretation.' No one says that -- no one believes it. Thus, the point of my 5557 was to ask whose perspectives are you subjecting to critique. > to be acceptable one will need to establish some > kind of relationship between the social division > of labor and the prices of production, > and nobody has succeeded in doing so to the > best of my knowledge. Nor should we expect the 'predominant reading' of the first chapter of Vol 1 to establish any kind of relationship whatsoever about POP. So again I am confused by what you wrote: *either*we are discussing the 'predominant' interpretation of Vol 1 *or* we are discussing a subject at a level of analysis where POP are already formed. You suggested at the end of 5558 that "all you need do" is read one or both of a couple of articles you wrote to understand which group of authors you are referring to. I have the draft that you sent me many years ago (btw, thanks for that) of your "A Critique of Part One of _Capital_ Volume One: The Value Controversy Revisited" in front of me now. When you identify authors near the beginning of that paper (p. 6 in the draft) it is in reference to the theory of commodity fetishism. Is that the subject that you want to discuss now? If so, please connect that topic to what you have written on this thread. For the 'orthodox side' on the subject of commodity fetishism (which is _only one_ of the subjects that concerns Ch 1), you identify Piling, Shaikh and Weeks. OK, _for the sake of argument_, I'll accept that these 'orthodox' writers put forward the 'predominant' reading of Ch. 1. Yet, none of these authors could be said to represent VFT: indeed, some are harshly critical of VFT. I also note that in your 5 page bibliography in which there are 89 sources listed, only 1 (Tony Smith's book on _The Logic of Marx's Capital_) is listed which could be said to put forward a VFT perspective. In conclusion, I like to know whose theories are being debated so that I have a clear understanding of the nature of the debate (and so that I can refer to the original sources for clarification). Otherwise, confusion reigns. So, until I know which authors and perspectives are being critiqued, I guess I will have to stay out of this sub-thread. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT