Subject: [OPE-L:1687] Re: value-form theories and the Uno-school?
From: Gerald Levy (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Nov 16 1999 - 08:04:05 EST
Re Andy's [OPE-L:1680]:
> (1) I was not aware of any clearly established difference between
> Fred and Tony's theory of value. Have I missed something?
No, I don't think you missed something. While there are similarities
between Fred's and Tony's interpretation of _Capital_ (e.g. they agree
that the subject matter of _Capital_ from the very beginning of Ch. 1
is capitalism; they also insist on the importance of the systematic
ordering of categories and the importance of not confusing and conflating
levels of abstraction), I don't think that Fred could be said to share a
value-form perspective (and he has never suggested that he did). Also,
the Hegelian influence on Tony's work is obvious; its influence on Fred's
interpretation remains unclear (at least to me). Also unclear to me is
Tony's perspective on the role of "givens" in Marx's theory, especially as
it relates to the quantitative determination of value.
But, I think it would be much more revealing for Tony and Fred to discuss
the degree to which their interpretations are similar but separate than
for you and I to do so. I don't know whether Fred and Tony have the time
for such a discussion on OPE-L now.
btw, I would be very interested in hearing what Tony (and Chris) thinks
of the R-W value-form interpretation, and vice versa. We haven't heard
from the "R" in R/W for a while and I would be curious to hear what
Geert's take on this, and related, questions are. Speaking of value-form
interpretations, whatever happened to Michael Eldred and associates? Are
they still publishing? About what?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:14 EST