Subject: [OPE-L:1685] Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: Gerald Levy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 06:51:15 EST
Re Nicky's [OPE-L:1682]:
You write to Makoto:
> What i meant to say was that you all share a view of 'value'
> as specific to capitalism [hope this is right?].
I don't think it is right, though. Rather, it forms a major (perhaps *the*
major) difference in interpretation between the two perspectives.
> But now i have a question about your view of abstract labour as an
> ahistorical concept.
"Ahistorical" is not an accurate word to use here, imo. Rather,
"trans-historical" would be a better descriptive term (i.e. a
"trans-historical" category is a category that is meant to be descriptive
of a process that is at work in both capitalism and [some] pre- [and
perhaps, post-] capitalist societies). This also, and related to the
above, serves as a major dividing line between the two perspectives. Thus,
value from the perspective of the Uno-school can refer to a pre-capitalist
(simple) commodity-producing economy. (For Makoto's perspective on value
and socialism, see _Political Economy for Socialism_, especially pp.
Thus, there are some *very* fundamental differences in perspective over
"basic theory" between the value-form (especially R-W) theory and the
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST