Re: [OPE] Value form theory 101

On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 22:23 +0100, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
<snip>
> Well everyone is entitled to his own interpretation, but I disagree
> with this approach, and that sense I am closer to the interpretations
> of Anwar Shaikh, Willi Semmler, Paul Cockshott, Philip Dunn and Ian
> Wright, with some provisos, such as that I think we should get much
> clearer about Marx's concept of "production prices" (I don't share
> Fred Moseley's idea, that it's simply another word for the "natural
> prices" of classical political economy). In this case, there is a
> real, empirical relationship between quantities of labour-time and
> regulating price-levels for labour-products, and value theory explains
> how they are related. Hence, Marx does have a theory of what
> determines product-prices, and isn't simply talking about the social
> relations of exchange.
<snip>

To avoid any misunderstanding, I should say that I would classify myself
as a belated convert to value-form theory. Geert Reuten's paper "The
Source versus Measure Obstacle in Value Theory" was instrumental in
moving me away from an "LTV" approach.

http://www.iwgvt.org/files/sympreuten.pdf

>From memory, Reuten points out that there are two measures of value in
Capital, labour-time and money. The question arises: what do these
measures measure? Well, that money measures relative value is easy.
After a while it occurred to me that labour-time measures equivalent
value. However, you can search section 3 of chapter 1 of CI but you will
not find the phrase, or even the concept, of "equivalent value".

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Dec 20 02:45:51 2008