Subject: [OPE-L:1692] Re: Re: errata corrige
From: 盟翕團 (rieudm@hanbat.chungnam.ac.kr)
Date: Wed Nov 17 1999 - 20:01:42 EST
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_ ?
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:15 EST