[OPE-L:1893] Re: Re: value-form theories

Subject: [OPE-L:1893] Re: Re: value-form theories
From: nicola taylor (nmtaylor@carmen.murdoch.edu.au)
Date: Fri Dec 10 1999 - 19:22:25 EST

Re Jerry's (OPE-L 1882) and Andy's [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.

I might be wrong, but i read Chris as saying that value takes on different
appearances (according to which moment of the circuit we are looking at),
so he does not endorse R&W's argument that 'money is the sole existence of
value'. Fred's formula would *not be endorsed* for the same reason - money
is only one level of the logic of value.

>> (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.

I don't think that Chris would go along with the R&W concept of value as
'pure transcendental form'; he would probably see this as an empty
abstraction. If i understand it, value only exists as a practical reality
when it becomes grounded in a material referent in a fully developed
capitalist totality (this is Chris's 'real abstraction through exchange).

>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.

Re ideal vs real, If commodities are implicitly values (as I think they
must be in the VF theories we are discussing) then money cannot actualise
value unless it is 'money as capital'. Correct me if i'm mistaken Chris,
but this is the point you made in your last post.

BTW, I have just started reading the archives, and I hope it's not out of
place for a newcomer to complement everyone on the amazing diversity of
perspectives on this list - also, it is a great achievement (given the
nature of lists) that there have been so few *hurtful* disagreements;
surely something that the moderator and all the participants can be VERY
proud of!

comradely Nicky

This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 15:45:04 EST