Subject: [OPE-L:1681] Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 15 1999 - 16:37:54 EST
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:34:40 -0000
From: Dr Michael J Williams <mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk>
I am gratified that the value-form work to which I have made a modest
contribution (at the "Western" end) is being discussed. I would love to dive
in with a whole series of comments and clarifications, but I just do not
have the space right now. For now, I am impressed with Jerry's insight into
at least the Williams perspective on the Reuten /Williams approach.
Maybe I'll have time to contribute more substantially in the new year (new
millenium?).
Michael
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Michael Williams
Principal Lecturer in Economics and Social Sciences
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
MK73PA
UK
+1908 834876
[home: +1703 768641]
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald Levy <glevy@pratt.edu>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 12:13 PM
Subject: [OPE-L:1677] Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
> Re [OPE-L:1672]:
>
> Hi Nicky.
>
> I asked you this question, in large part, because I don't think there has
> been a lot of discussion between value-form theorists and the Uno-school.
> Indeed, both schools might claim, with a lot of justification, that their
> perspectives have not been systematically evaluated and critiqued by other
> Marxists. Thus, I thought that a cross-discussion between the 2 might be
> both beneficial and revealing.
>
> I think that the difference in interpretation between value-form theory
> and the Uno-school *begins*, in terms of the order of presentation of
> Marx's _Capital_ with the very _first sentence of Volume 1, Chapter 1_.
> I.e. Geert/Mike W/Chris/Tony (correct me if I'm wrong, guys) believe that
> the subject matter of _Capital_ from the very beginning is *capitalism*.
> In this interpretation they are not alone (e.g. Fred would agree with
> them on that point). On the other hand, the Uno-school has viewed Ch. 1
> differently. This can be seen in the following short extract from one of
> Makoto's books:
>
> "Although Marx titles the first volume of _Capital_ "The
> Process of Production of Capital", he does not immediately
> investigate the substantial content of a capitalist mode of
> production. In the first two Parts of the volume, beginning
> with the analysis of the commodity as the elementary form, he
> elucidates the systematic relations between commodities, money
> and capital as the development of the forms of value. Both
> historically and spatially these forms appear as basic
> components of commodity production in general in much wider
> periods and the places than capitalist production ....
> Then, subsequently at the beginning of the third Part of the
> volume, where the investigation of the inner mechanism of
> capitalist production begins, ...." (_The Basic Theory of
> Capitalism: The Forms and Substance of the Capitalist
> Economy_, p. 73)
>
> Another difference in interpretation concerns, as you suggest, the
> relationship between money and value. I think this is an important
> difference for both theories.
>
> It is true, as you say, that both theories have been accused of
> "neglecting the quantitative issues in Marx's value theory". I don't know
> if "neglecting" is the most appropriate word to use in either case. To
> begin with, I don't think that the Uno-school has ever denied the
> importance of a rigorous explanation of the quantitative side of value. In
> the case of some value-form theorists (e.g. Geert/Mike W), their theory
> concerning the relationship of money and value suggests that the issues
> involved in debates over quantitative determination are misplaced. I'm not
> clear myself whether this perspective is shared by other value-form
> theorists like Tony and Chris.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
> > To elaborate slightly, the question posed by 'value-form' thoerists is
> > really one about the ontology of abstract labour, as different people
> > understand it. Once again generalising, value-form theorists take their
> > point of departure from the first chapter of 'Capital', where Marx
> > describes value as the 'social substance' of commensurate, privately
> > produced commodities. Also value arises only as the result of a
specific,
> > historically contingent process of abstracting from different types of
> > labour through commodity exchange. As the characteristic form that
social
> > labour takes in capitalist society, value has a 'ghostly objectivity':
it
> > is a reflection of an undifferentiated expenditure of labour power from
> > which all 'sensuous qualities are extinguished'. <snip>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST