Re: is value labour?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 09:51:13 EDT

Paul C.,

I'm going through this exchange, I notice you wrote:

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Paul Cockshott wrote:

> My opinion is that the value form theorists have retained the
> the Ricardian identity between value and exchange value. Paradoxically
> for people who want to emphasise the distinction between
> Ricardo and Marx, their problematic actually makes it
> harder for them to perform the sort of comparative analysis
> of historical forms that Marx pioneered.
> Value is first identified with exchange value, ...

But neither Rubin nor Laibman do this.  See:

Rubin, I. I. 1927, "Abstract Labor and Value in Marx's System", translated
by K. Gilbert, Capital and Class, Volume 5, Summer 1978, pp.

Kliman, A. J. 2000, Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value", Historical
Materialism, No. 6, pp. 89-113.

In fact, they may a big deal out of the difference between value and the
form of value in exchange value.

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT