[ show plain text ]
Re Riccardo's [OPE-L:2174]:
> My personal opinion about VFT is that it rightly stressed the dimension of
> 'form' in Marx, but that it has lost the 'substance', and there is no
> substance without the form, and viceversa, at least according to Marx. Hic
> Rhodus, hic salta. As a consequence, VFT in my opinion has no quantitative
> 'theory', simply a quantitative 'accounting' (just as Sraffa, who
> definitely is not a value form theorist).
Isn't this basically the same criticism as that made by Carchedi & de Haan
in _Capital & Class_ (57; Autumn 1995) in Section 6 of their article,
"Value as a Metaphor?" (pp. 100-102)? Yet, as I recall, didn't
you challenge Mino on just this point on OPE-L (in November or December,
'95; I don't recall the post #) in which you said that you didn't think
that this section of their article was "fair" to VFT?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:07 EST