Subject: [OPE-L:1882] Re: value-form theories
From: Gerald Levy (glevy@PRATT.EDU)
Date: Fri Dec 10 1999 - 08:19:40 EST
Andy wrote in [OPE-L:1880]:
> Also, do you think the
> point that Chris Arthur endorses the same quantitative formula as Fred
> is relevant?
I'm not sure. In looking back at Chris's [OPE-L:1757] I don't see his
"endorsement" of Fred's formula. Also, it should be noted that Chris says
that he adheres to a rather "strong" version of VF theory and it is
unclear, to me at least, whether R&W share his strong version.
> (snip) 'Value', on the other hand,
> for R&W, is probably nothing other than price ('pure transcendental
> form'). I have to admit that this notion of 'pure form' seems
> nonesensical to me.
To gain a better perspective on some of the controversies related to the
concept of ideal value, please go to the archives and read some of the
"ideal vs. real value" thread that took place in the period from
March-June, 1997. Mike W was an active participant in that thread, btw.
(Before reading the thread, it might be a good idea to first see the
"THE MONTH IN REVIEW" series for those months as they identify the names
of the spin-offs from that thread that relate to the same issue. In
general, I strongly recommend that members use both the archives and the
TMIR series to gain a perspective on past discussions. The TMIR series
ends in May, 1998 -- preparing it each month was just too time-consuming.
The last "THE YEAR IN REVIEW" was for 1997. I re-posted the entire series
last December. I view the TMIR concept, btw, as one of the real
organizational innovations of this list.)
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 15:45:03 EST