Subject: [OPE-L:1691] Re: errata corrige
From: riccardo bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Wed Nov 17 1999 - 08:47:09 EST
Dear comrades,
in the post below, written in a hurry, there were some stupid
errors: I quote a post by Mike L, while indeed it was a post by Mike W; at
least a phrase does not stand up because the verb is missing; in the end I
add not three things but four! I hope however that the sense of the post
was clear. Below an errata corrige in capital blocks...
Apoogies.
riccardo
---------------------------------------------
At 17:26 +0100 16-11-1999, riccardo bellofiore wrote:
>At 7:32 -0500 12-11-1999, Gerald Levy wrote:
>>Hi Nicky. May I ask you a question?
>>
>>> My own readings of 'Capital' are guided by value-form perspectives;
>>> in particular, those associated with Japanese political economy.
>>
>>What do you see as the relationship between value-form theories (e.g.
>>Reuten-Williams) and those "value-form" perspectives associated with
>>Japanese political economy (Uno?; [Makoto] Itoh?; other?). In other words,
>>what do you see as the commonalities and differences in perspective of
>>these two (or more) theories? And, why do you refer to the perspectives
>>from [some] Marxists in Japan as being "value-form perspectives"?
>>
>>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>Dear OPE-L comrades,
>
> me too as Mike W. am busy until the new millenium [that, according
>to my quantitative measures, begins the 1st January of 2001], hence this is
>a lonely whisper in the wilderness of karoshi. This mail is simply to
>signal that those interested on the issue of value-form and abstract labour
>as the substance of value may find interesting the papers by Geert, Chris
>and myself in the special issue of the Rassegna di Politica Economica (in
>English) which was quoted by Jerry in OPE-L 1540 (reproduced below).
>
> I think that the reference to Marx is empty if we are not able to
>hold together the value-form perspective and the notion that abstract
>labour is the substance of value. I think we must stress (as Rubin?) that
>there is a double measure in Marx: an 'external' measure of value (money)
>and an 'immanent' measure of value (labour). The substance of value - Marx
>writes both in the first and in the last version of the first chapter of
>Capital - is labour, measured in time units. This position is contested by
>Geert and is upheld by me in the journal. The fact that I see the two
>dimensions (money and labour) as inextricably joined in Marx does not mean
>that there are no contradictions in Marx's deductions, nor that these
>contradictions are not mortal. It simply means that if we arrive to the
>conclusion that form and substance of value cannot be reconciled, Marx's
>theoretical edifice crumbles down. One may then choose between
>Benetti-Cartelier (who are value-form theorists) and Sraffians (who refer
>to 'objective' conditions of production).
>
> In short my position is exactly the same as Chris's in the Rivista.
>Chris writes: "Money is the only measure of success; it is the existent
>form of 'abstract wealth' (Marx), and this means that the activity
>producing it is itself posited as abstract, that the living labour employed
>in the capitalist labour process counts only as an abstraction of itself,
>*as a passage of time*". And again: "Since capital produces value out of
>exploiting workers in Napoleoni's sense, the *time* of this exploitation is
>an appropriate measure of value".
>
> Indeed, Chris's paper in the Rivista is one of the best I've read
>in the last decade. I agree with it 99,99 % and I am sure this judgement is
>not affected by the fact that Chris refers several times to three papers of
>mine subscribing to my views! The funny thing is that in a private
>conversation after the paper being published I DISCOVERED that Chris now
>seems to
>disagree with himself and to agree with Geert...
>
> Let me add FOUR things: (i) that not only the value-form but the
>same substance of value in Chris's quotes (and in my view) is capitalistic
>(I strongly disagree with the view that abstract labour is a
>transhistorical notion); (ii) that Nicky's definition of the value-form
>approach fits exactly Colletti's reading of Marx; (iii) that to say, as
>Nicky does, that the 'Ricardian' (Sraffian) interpretation is that value is
>labour embodied is ambiguous: this the interpretation *of Marx* given by
>Steedman and Garegnani etc, but of course the Sraffians strongly disagree
>with Marx on this point, and deny that value is labour embodied (hence,
>they are on the same side of the barricade with the value-form critics of
>traditional marxism); (iv) that in my view the abstract labour theory of
>value is not a theory of relative prices, but a theory of the origin of
>value and surplus value and of the class distribution of income - that is,
>it is a macromonetary theory of exploitation. The quantitative side of
>value theory must not be confused with theory of relative prices.
>
>best
>
>riccardo
>--------
>
>OPE-L 1540
>
>David and Paul Z:
>
>Since we're mentioning journals, may I mention an issue of a journal
>(that, as it happens, I received in the mail today)?
>
>Note the familiar names.
>
>In solidarity, Jerry
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> _Rivisti Di Politica Economica_
>
>Year LXXXIX - 3rd Series April-May 1999 No. IV-V
>
> CLASSICAL AND MARXIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY:
> A DEBATE ON CLAUDIO NAPOLEONI'S VIEWS
>
> edited by
>
> Mario Baldassarri and Riccardo Bellofiore
>
>"The Economic Thought of Claudio Napoleoni"
> by Giorgio Rodano
>
>"Preface"
> by Riccardo Bellofiore
>
>"The Value of Labour Value. The Italian Debate on Marx: 1968-1976"
> by Riccardo Bellofiore
>
>"Accumulation, Breakdown Crises, Disproportionality, and Effective
> Demand"
> by Joseph Halevi
>
>"The Source versus Measure Obstacle in Value Theory"
> by Geert Reuten
>
>"Market and Division of Labour: a Critical Reformulation of Marx's
> View"
> by Carlo Benetti and Jean Cartelier
>
>"Napoleoni on Labour and Exploitation"
> by Christopher J. Arthur
>
>@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
>
>
>
> Riccardo Bellofiore
>Office: Department of Economics
> Piazza Rosate, 2
> I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
>Home: Via Massena, 51
> I-10128 Torino, Italy
>e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
>tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
> +39 035 277501 (dept.)
> +39 011 5819619 (home)
>fax: +39 035 249975
Riccardo Bellofiore
Office: Department of Economics
Piazza Rosate, 2
I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
Home: Via Massena, 51
I-10128 Torino, Italy
e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
+39 035 277501 (dept.)
+39 011 5819619 (home)
fax: +39 035 249975
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:15 EST