Subject: [OPE-L:1902] Re: Re: value-form theories
From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 12 1999 - 09:39:34 EST
Still trying to catch up, this is a response to Jerry's post of Dec. 4.
Responses below.
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Gerald Levy wrote:
> For R-W, surplus value is constituted on the market (i.e. it has its
> origins in the "intersection" of production and circulation) and is
> expressed only through the value-form. Thus abstract-labour can only be
> quantified, from their perspective, through prices.
Jerry, what is R-W's theory of prices? If the magnitude of prices is not
determined by quantities of abstract labor, then what is the magnitude of
prices determined by, according to R-W?
> So I think that R-W *are* "CAPABLE" of producing a quantitative theory of
> surplus value, but is a theory which does not connect what you call (in
> [OPE-L:1830]) the substance of value (abstract labor) and the form of
> appearance of value (as money or price) with the magnitude of value
> (SNLT). Thus I don't think the issue is whether they are capable of
> providing a quantitative theory of surplus value, but is rather whether
> their conception of value is more or less satisfactory than that presented
> by Marx.
You assert that R-W are capable of producing a quantitative theory of
surplus-value, but you don't tell us here HOW they do this (perhaps you
tell us in a later post; we shall see). What determines the magnitude of
surplus-value, according to R-W? If it is not determined by the quantity
of surplus labor, then what is it determined by?
I look forward to catching up and continuing the discussion.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 15:45:04 EST