[OPE-L:5817] RE: Teach yourself the Value-form

From: Michael Williams (michael@williamsmj.worldonline.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 07 2001 - 07:50:08 EDT


In response to a request from Steve off-list, here is the result of a quick
dash through my database to find 'key' readings on the Value-form. The items
have been chosen on the grounds of pertinence and topicality. It is no doubt
too long for Steve's purposes, given time constraints. So I have posted it
on-list:

  a.. in case other members may be interested
  b.. in the hope that others may fill in any lacunae
  c.. in the hope that some of the authors cited may be better able to
prioritise their own and others work in order to generate a more manageable
list.
Arthur, C., J (1999). From the Critique of Hegel to the Critique of Capital.
The Hegel-Marx Connexion. T. Burns and I. Fraser. London, Macmillan.

Arthur, C. J. (1998). ^”Systematic Dialectic.^‘ Science & Society 62(3):
447-59.

Arthur, C. J. (1993). Hegel's Logic and Marx's Capital. Marx's Method in
'Capital': a re-examination. F. Moseley. Atlantic Highlands NJ, Humanities
Press: 63-87.

Arthur, C. J. (1979). Dialectic of the Value-Form. Value: The Representation
of Labour. D. Elson. Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press: 67-81.

Backhaus, H.-G. (1969). ^”Zur Dialektik der Wertform
(On the Dialectics of the Value-form).^‘ Thesis Eleven 1 (1980): 99-120.

Eldred, M. and M. Hanlon (1981). ^”Reconstructing Value-Form Analysis.^‘
Capital and Class 13(Spring): 24-60.

Elson, D. (1979). The Value Theory of Labour. Value: the representation of
labour in capitalism. D. Elson. London, CSE Books.

Marx, K. (1994 [1867]). The Value-Form. Debates in Value Theory. S. Mohun.
Basingstoke, Macmillan.


Murray, P. (1993). The Necessity of Money: How Hegel Helped Marx Surpass
Ricardo's Theory of Value. Marx's Method in Capital: A Re-examination. F.
Moseley. Atlantic Highlands NJ, Humanities: 37-62.

Reuten, G. (1993). The Difficult Labour of a Theory of Social Value:
Metaphors and Systematic Dialectics at the Beginning of Marx's Capital.
Marx's Method in Capital: A Re-examination. F. Moseley. New Jersey,
Humanities: 89-114.

Reuten, G. and M. Williams (1989). Value-form and the State: the tendencies
of accumulation and the determination of economic policy in capitalist
society. London/New York, Routledge.




Smith, T. (1990). The Logic of Marx's 'Capital': replies to Hegelian
criticisms. Albany NY, State University of New York Press.

Smith, T. (1998). "Value Theory and Dialectics." Science and Society 62(3).




Smith, T. (1999). "The Relevance of Systematic Dialectics to Marxist
Thought: A Reply to Rosenthal." Historical Materialism: research in critical
Marxist Theory 4(Summer): 215-240.

Williams, M. (2001). "Mysticism, Method and Money in the Marx-Hegel
Dialectic." Cambridge Journal of Economics 25.



Williams, M. (1999). "Why Marx neither has nor needs a Commodity Theory of
Money." Review of Political Economy 30.


Comradely greetings,


michael



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Keen [mailto:s.keen@uws.edu.au]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 6:58 AM
> To: michael@williamsmj.worldonline.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L:5736] RE: Re: Re: de-bunking the de-bunk
>
>
> Point taken, Michael,
>
> But as with the comments I made to Jerry, it'll have to be when I
> have time
> (and you don't want to know my current schedule, believe me). Would you
> like to give me a list of recommended readings (on or off-list)? As I
> noted, the last time I had seriously looked at this particular
> approach to
> Marx was back when I was writing my masters thesis, in 1990.
>
> Cheers,
> Steve
> At 09:00 AM 6/2/01 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> > > [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Steve Keen
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:52 PM
> > > To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> > > Subject: [OPE-L:5698] Re: Re: de-bunking the de-bunk
> > >
> > >
> > > ... So with that start, any theory
> > > which attempts to prove that the LTV is viable in any form
> > > doesn't even get
> > > to first base with me. It may be a LTV theory; but to me, it
> ain't Marx.
> >
> >How about a 'value-theory of labour' Steve? Less enigmatically,
> it is not at
> >all clear to me that anything that could be called a labour
> theory of value
> >informs all, if any, VF approach.
> > >
> > > ... I've already cut off both legs (the belief that
> > > the LTV is Marx's fundamental theory of value, and the belief
> > > that the LTV
> > > is consistent with his theory of value).
> >
> >Neither of these is my VF approach.
> >
> > > Now VFT and TSS interpretations
> > > are threatening to bite me to death.
> >
> >Who?, Where? Why wasn't I invited? Can I watch?
> >
> >
> >If you want to de-bunk any VF approach, Steve, it seems reasonable to ask
> >you to read at least a few key works first - rather than
> assuming that they
> >can be lumped in with a heterogeneous collection of other
> >interpretations/developments of Marx ... or?
> >
> >michael
>
> Home Page: http://www.debunking-economics.com
>              http://bus.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>              http://www.stevekeen.net
> Dr. Steve Keen
> Senior Lecturer
> Economics & Finance
> Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
> School of Economics and Finance
> UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
> LOCKED BAG 1797
> PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
> Australia
> s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
> Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT