GERALD LEVY wrote:
> I have already explained that 1) isn't really accurate as a summary of
> what VFT claims
What is inaccurate about it? There are some terminological differences,
e.g. 'abstract labour in general' vs. 'socially equalized labour'.
The substantial issue is this: Does economic value arise out of the
exchange process, and would not exist otherwise? And that is precisely
what is raised in your points (a) and (b).
> Jurriaan has emphasized looking
> at the empirics and history regarding these disputes - that is a
> methodological claim. Value-form theorists would claim, I think,
> that other perspectives are insufficiently dialectical
Yes, Jurriaan's emphasis is a methodological claim. But ultimately it is
the methodology of science, in which levels of abstractions are always
considered. However, I fail to see that your last sentence has any
meaning in a scientific discourse. What does it mean to be 'sufficiently
dialectical'?
> For one
> 'side', this debate is in great part about different perspectives on
> pre- and post-capitalist capitalist modes of production. The focus
> of the other perspective (VFT) is squarely on capitalism.
But capitalism does not operate in a separate block of space-time. It is
always historically and spatially linked with non-capitalist economic
social relations. An exclusive focus on capitalism may miss more general
social patterns and if these exist they must be uncovered. That is the
task of science.
//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Mar 13 15:13:59 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT