Subject: [OPE-L:1688] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 09:04:49 EST
At 02:21 16/11/99 +0800, you wrote:
>Hi Paul
>
>At 10:09 15/11/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >At 00:13 15/11/99 +0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>All of these writers have, of course, been accused of neglecting the
> >>quantitative issues in Marx's value theory. A big question is whether a
> >>theory of profit is possible without a quantitative measure of the
> >>'substance of value'; this is a crucial point to answer for Marxists who
> >>are interested in exploitation.
> >
> >What do you think?
>
>The questions raised by value-form approaches are open to interpretation
>and discussion; which means, I am ready to be persuaded. So, tell me what
>you think?
>cheers,
>Nicky
One could have a theory of profit without a quantitative measure of the
substance
of value, for instance one could postulate that profit was the reward for
abstinence.
Such a theory is weak in the sense that it makes little in the way of
quantative, and
hence testable predictions.
One advantage of the labour theory of value is that it does make some
quantitative
predictions that are non obvious.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:15 EST