(OPE-L) Re: is value labour?

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 11:52:18 EDT

Paul Z wrote on May 23:

>> 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.
> 107-139.
> Kliman, A. J. 2000, Marx's Concept of Intrinsic Value", Historical
> Materialism, No. 6, pp. 89-113.

Did you mean to write "neither Rubin nor Laibman nor Kliman"
or when you wrote 'Laibman' was that a typo and did you intend
to write 'Kliman'?

I don't recall, off-hand, the title of the paper by David L
that included a critique of other interpretations, including
VFT and the TSSI, but I recall that it was presented at a
IWGVT a few years ago -- although it's not at the IWGVT web
site, I believe.

In solidarity, Jerry

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