Subject: [OPE-L:1693] Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Date: Thu Nov 18 1999 - 03:12:18 EST
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:39:14 +0900
From: makoto itoh <mktitoh@kokugakuin.ac.jp>
Dear Jerry, Paul, Nicky and other friends;
( Is this going to OPE-L? If not, please readdress.)
I agree with Paul and Jerry's view of distinction between G/W value form
theories and mine, though there might some Uno theorists who are more
sympathetic to the former. As Jerry points out, the issue relates to the
view of possible models of socialism. Labour-time must be an important
concern for social cooperation among workers in a socialist economies, as
Marx suggested. If this aspect is conceived as social labour, the concept of
labour must become triple, not dual, and the theoretical relations among
by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA12073
for <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [130.192.120.35] (p120-35.cisi.unito.it [130.192.120.35])
by gaia.cisi.unito.it (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA12156
for <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>; Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:18:51 +0100 (MET)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <v04011700b45970eea926@[130.192.120.55]>
In-Reply-To: <38334FF5.6DD27D88@hanbat.chungnam.ac.kr>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.96.991112072327.10777B-100000@acnet>
<Pine.GSO.3.96.991112035155.5274A-100000@acnet>
<v04011701b4586110da59@[130.192.120.54]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 10:10:28 +0100
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
From: riccardo bellofiore <bellofio@cisi.unito.it>
Subject: [OPE-L:1694] Re: Re: Re: errata corrige
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by galaxy.csuchico.edu id BAA12074
Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Sender: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
At 10:01 +0900 18-11-1999, ^Å^صø¼^Ñ wrote:
>Dear Riccardo
>
>It's almost impossible to get an Italian(?) Journal in Korea.
>Would you kindly show me the way to get(buy) a copy of
>_Rivisti Di Politica Economica_ ?
I think that the Journal is bought by libraries (though I don't know if
in Korea!). However, there are two other ways to get it:
(i) to send a fax to ask a complimentary copy to Virgiliana Rondinara, c/o
SIPI, Viale Pasteur 6, 00144 Rome, +39/06/5924819 (may be they still have
some);
(ii) I can send a photocopy of the journal to you.
This last offer is of course valid for all those on OPE-L who are
interested in the journal. Simply let me have your addresses.
riccardo
>
>In solidarity
>
>Rieu
>
>riccardo bellofiore wrote:
>
>> 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
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