Re Chris's [5662]: A question for Steve K: Reuten-Williams in _Value-Form and the State_ and elsewhere have developed a theory in which (amongst other things): * the theory is limited in scope to the analysis of capitalism (thus I interpreted Chris's most recent post to mean that the "infinite regression critique" does not touch VFT since VFT, unlike some variants of LET, does not conceptualize value as a trans-historical concept); * there is a relation (an identity?) between value and money that is not the case with (most) LETs; * labour power is not a commodity (on this point Ajit and R-W agree); * the money commodity is relegated to understanding a historically- specific period of capitalism and is in no way viewed as "essential" for capitalism. QUESTION: Given the above, is there anything at all of significance left of the "Debunking" critique that applies to VFT? (NB: issues, including the 'transformation problem', that concern the quantitative dimensions of Marx's theory of value are not applicable to VFT given their understanding of the relation of value and money.) Perhaps you could post a "correction" on your WWW site and place VFT in the last chapter of the 2nd edition (assuming that there wil be a 2nd edition)? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT