[ show plain text ]
----- Original Message -----
From: riccardo bellofiore <email@example.com>
To: Michael J Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>; OPE-L
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:35 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2251] Re: value-form theories
> I would appreciate the shortest answer you may give for 'why *labour* in
> the abstract labour theory of value?'.
Because 'labour' is Marx's answer to the question How does M => (M + dM)
occur? And I agree with that.
>The reference to Classical Political
> Economy is worrying me. Smith has the idea that labour is the source of
> value, because labour is the *active* element in production,
That is right as far as it goes
> mode of production.
But that is not, because Value is a category specific to capitalism.
This cannot be Marx's perspective (I hold with
>I would like to
> understand how the systematic dialectical presentation explain why labour
> is the source of *value*, a statement which I hold is valid *only* in
And so does VFT
> My difficulty of course is to understand how it is possible to
> have 'labour' in the theory of value without labour as the substance of
Could you explain briefly what you mean by 'labour is the *substance* of
> while I understand that
> you and Geert dissociate now from labour as the substance of value.
I'm not sure about Geert, beyond that I think he is of the view that
'substance' in any rigorous sense is an inappropriate term in the context of
value-theory. In several recent posts I have explained why imo value is a
predicate, a property, and so it must be a property *of* something, and that
something is the Commodity. A property can not have a substance, it can only
be the property of a substance, and you are obviously not claiming that
Value is a property of abstract labour.
> don't think I am derogatory towards any of the surnames I've done.
Neither do I. What I said was misplaced and flat-footed irony. Forget it.
> the idea in Marx that exploitation arises at the
> intersection of the labour market and immediate production, and is only
> actualized in exchange
I agree with this idea, as does, I guess VFT in all its guises
>value is constituted (only) in
> exchange, without nothing 'substantial' before
This is not my view, nor, imo, that of VFT.
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
fax: 0870 133 1147
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 97. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:08 EST