[OPE-L:1872] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories

Subject: [OPE-L:1872] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theories
From: Andrew Brown (A.N.Brown@uel.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 09 1999 - 06:40:43 EST

Call me stupid - it's been a while since I read R&W - but my vague
memory is that R&W *do* end up arguing that abstract labour time
determines the magnitude of surplus value. They use the argument that
labour power is not produced as a commodity.

When it comes to Chris Arthur - a value-form theorist who is very
close theoretically to R&W - he has explicitly stated in his last post
that he gets the same equation as Fred connecting labour and
prices/profits magnitudes.

I know a key difference of the above value-form theorists and Marx is
that the later introduce labour into their presentation later than does
Marx. There is also the difference regarding the notion of 'substance'
of value. But I hadn't thought there was such a huge gulf concerning
the magnitude of value and labour time. If someone could set me
straight I would be very grateful.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 15:45:03 EST