[OPE-L:6340] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Michael Williams (michael@williamsmj.worldonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 17 2002 - 04:26:01 EST


Reuten & Williams (1989) Value Form and the State: ... is out of print.

I have a photo-copy (my last proper copy having been liberated by a student
I lent it to ...), but am currently between jobs, so cannot easily make more
copies.

I got this copy from Geert, who may be able to supply a copy to those who
ask - presumably for the cost of photo-copying and postage?

michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
[mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
Sent: 17 January 2002 01:01
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Subject: [OPE-L:6338] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: recent science and society
and Fred M's interpretation


>Hi Rakesh, 2 questions for you:
>
>>It is of course possible to give a *description* of crises, working
>>class struggle within the abode of production and unemployment
>>without reference to labor value (all one has to do is remove rose
>>blinkered spectacles); it is not however possible in my opinion to
>>give a deep explanation of the root causes of said developmental
>>tendencies of the capitalist sytem on any other foundation than the
>>one of labor value (or as Tony Smith would put it, in the
>>commodity-form, money form, and capital form themselves; of course
>>one could argue that rooting said phenomena in these forms does not
>>necessarily commit one to the theory of labor value).
>
>i) do you agree with Tony that Marx provided some grounds for 'rooting said
>phenomena' in the value forms?
>
>If you do agree, let's (for arguments sake) say that the value-form
>determination of productive activity (and determination of patterns of
>consumption) is the Lakatosian hard core concept of Marxism, and labour
>values little more than a protective belt.  Then:
>
>ii) are theories that attempt to develop this strand of Marx's thought
>Marxist theories, given that they can explain the said phenomena without
>recourse to labour values?
>

this is appealing and well put indeed, Nicky, but my answer is no!
yes capitalist crises are rooted in value forms (by which I mean the
basic institution of commodity production (the commodity form) by
means of wage labor (wage form) for the purposes of private
appropriation (money- and capital-forms). But I think Marx's
explanation of why such an institutional arrangement--value form
theories helps us to specify its key features--leads to crises and
immiseration depends on the theory of labor value; moreover, it is my
hunch that without the theory of labor value it is not possible to go
from the value form specification of bourgeois institutions to a
satisfactory theory of general crisis.

But I may not understand value form theory properly.  Now that I have
moved, I wanted to ask Michael Williams for a photocopy of his book
with Geert Reuten because the Stanford Library does not even have it!
I think Michael W was offering copies to people on the list?


Rakesh

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 02/01/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 02/01/2002



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST