[OPE-L:6930] Re: value-form

From: Christopher Arthur (cjarthur@waitrose.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 08:44:59 EDT

, Re Nicky's [6896]:
>I feel 99%
>confident that Tony, Chris, Geert, and Patrick Murray will agree with me if
>I say that the similarities among perspectives are far more important than
>the differences (which mainly come down to differences in emphasis).  In
>fact, my own synthesis attempt includes not only VFT theory but Riccardo
>B's work (expecially on money in Marx's circuit).  Although the
>disagreements may be larger here (and I'm not yet certain how important
>they are) I think that the most fruitful way forward theoretically is to
>emphasise our agreement on two key points: 1) that the capital-labour
>relation is more fundamental than the exchange relation, and from this 2)
>money and capital must be theorised as a relationship with labour along two
>interconnected dimensions (reflected in the circuit of capital): the
>exchange (in markets) of labour power for wages and the subsumption of
>living labour (in production) under the aspects of time.  Differences
>mainly concern how that is to be done.
>If any of the above mentioned names profoundly disagree with this statement
>on similarity/difference, please correct me!  Meantime, I'll join Jerry in
>coffee and contemplation.

I agree the similarities are more important than differences: I would
mention a shared methodology of 'systematic dialectic', albeit the results
pan out differently; and of course the stress on form means money plays a
more central role in the theory than in any other marxist perspective. But
Jerry is also right there are significant differences (e.g. on when and how
to address labour).
But I have a question for you, nicky: can you expand more on your point
(1)? Surely in some sense exchange is absolutely fundamental. The
presuppositions (later posits) of the bourgeois epoch are the
dissociations: betweeen production and consumption; between production
units; between labour and its conditions. All these are overcome by
exchange; commodities are exchangeable goods; M-C-M is an exchagne
sequence, etc. Obviously you know this, so I must have missed your point


17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT