Oh, I don't dispute at all that Reuten/Williams are fellow socialists, and that they want to have a theory of value without the nuisance of Marx's LTV. I said so already. It's just that I think they dismiss the LTV for the wrong reasons and that their alternative is a sociology of capitalist society, that is all. I regard their theory of value as definitional, not as coherent and grounded in economic history. And obviously capitalist production as the "unity" of production and circulation of commodities involves relations of production, circulation, distribution and consumption. Question is if you can separately identify what they are. As far as I am concerned, Marxists are completely at liberty to mix all that up, and conflate the forms and substance of value, as far as I am concerned, it is just that this has nothing to do with Marx. But since you cleverly avoid the substantive issues, I will drop the subject.
J.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Dec 15 02:33:55 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2008 - 00:00:05 EST