From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 10:46:45 EDT
Jerry
Sorry to be so late picking this up.
" To say that labour (of a particular form) creates value is quite
different from saying that value _is_ labour. ... [As far as Marx's take
on this is concerned , note that Chris A took the late Ernest Mandel to
task for claiming that "For Marx *labour is value*". Chris argues that
this is "directly refuted by Marx's own text" (Volume 1 of _Capital_)
where M wrote that "labour is not itself value." Chris goes on to claim
that Mandel "overlooked the importance of the value *form*" ("Value
Labour and Negativity" in _Capital & Class_, 73, Spring 2001, p. 31).
What is unclear to me, though, is when Marx *first* expressed this
proposition that labour is not value. E.g. what did he write about this
in the drafts of _Capital_?] , " Jerry
He writes in the Grundrisse not merely that labour is NOT vaue (i.e.
something different; but that "Labour IS not-value" i.e. interpenetrating
OPPOSITE. See pp. 295-96
Claus is right that L is V may be different from V is L. But again in the
Grundrisse Marx says that in value labour produces 'the being of its
not-being', which is tantamount to Value IS not-labour. See p. 454,
repeated in 1863 - see MECW 34 p. 202. I have used these quotes to some
extent in my book and more fully in a paper called Capital and Labour
published in Greece. I will send you (and anyone else who requests it) an
English version separately.
Chris
17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT