[OPE-L:5842] RE: RE: RE: Re: form and content re value-form andabstractlabour

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Sat Jun 09 2001 - 01:04:41 EDT

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Michael Williams wrote:
> Thanks for Fred's response - my replies are interpolated into his message:-

> ...
> >
> > IMO, I don't think the "VF strand" in Marx's work has been adequately
> > demonstrated.  I would appreciate any textual evidence to support this
> > interpretation.
> As I said, I do not have time to concern myself with this now. I am not sure
> that it can ever be 'demonstrated'. My interest is complicated by the fact
> that I see VF as a reconstruction and development as well as an
> interpretation of Marx. I have a PhD student working on seeing if a
> systematic dialectic can be 'discerned' in vol 1 - I'm sure you can have a
> look at the dissertation when it is near-complete. 

I would love to take a look at this at the appropriate time.  Please give
me in mind.  What a good idea for a dissertation!

> In the meantime, the best
> I can offer is that you look at the references to Marx cited in Reuten &
> Williams (1989).

Which I have done, and have not been persuaded.

> >
> > I think this position is sustainable, as I have argued in my paper
> > ("Abstract Labor: Substance or Form?  A Critique of the Value-Form
> > Interpretation of Marx's Theory", available on my
> > website: www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley).
> I look forward to reading this when time permits. (Perhaps we can get
> Science & Society to publish a symposium on the Value-Form?)

Another good idea.  Why don't we submit a joint proposal to Laibman.
How about I write a draft and then we go from there?

Thanks again for the discussion.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT