From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 09:51:13 EDT
Paul C., I'm going through this exchange, I notice you wrote: On Wed, 7 May 2003, Paul Cockshott wrote: > My opinion is that the value form theorists have retained the > the Ricardian identity between value and exchange value. Paradoxically > for people who want to emphasise the distinction between > Ricardo and Marx, their problematic actually makes it > harder for them to perform the sort of comparative analysis > of historical forms that Marx pioneered. > > Value is first identified with exchange value, ... But neither Rubin nor Laibman do this. See: Rubin, I. I. 1927, "Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System", translated by K. Gilbert, Capital and Class, Volume 5, Summer 1978, pp. 107-139. Kliman, A. J. 2000, Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value", Historical Materialism, No. 6, pp. 89-113. In fact, they may a big deal out of the difference between value and the form of value in exchange value. Paul Z.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT