[OPE-L:1697] Re: Re: Re: Re: errata corrige


Subject: [OPE-L:1697] Re: Re: Re: Re: errata corrige
From: (rieudm@hanbat.chungnam.ac.kr)
Date: Thu Nov 18 1999 - 19:41:38 EST


Dear Riccardo
Then, could you send me a photocopy of the journal to the following address? Thanks
in advance!

Dong-Min Rieu
Dept. of Economics, Chungnam National University
220 Kung-Dong, Yusong-Gu
Taejon 305-764
Republic of Korea

riccardo bellofiore wrote:

> At 10:01 +0900 18-11-1999, ^^ص^ wrote:
> >Dear Riccardo
> >
> >It's almost impossible to get an Italian(?) Journal in Korea.
> >Would you kindly show me the way to get(buy) a copy of
> >_Rivisti Di Politica Economica_ ?
>
> I think that the Journal is bought by libraries (though I don't know if
> in Korea!). However, there are two other ways to get it:
>
> (i) to send a fax to ask a complimentary copy to Virgiliana Rondinara, c/o
> SIPI, Viale Pasteur 6, 00144 Rome, +39/06/5924819 (may be they still have
> some);
>
> (ii) I can send a photocopy of the journal to you.
>
> This last offer is of course valid for all those on OPE-L who are
> interested in the journal. Simply let me have your addresses.
>
> riccardo
>
> >
> >In solidarity
> >
> >Rieu
> >
> >riccardo bellofiore wrote:
> >
> >> Dear comrades,
> >>
> >> in the post below, written in a hurry, there were some stupid
> >> errors: I quote a post by Mike L, while indeed it was a post by Mike W; at
> >> least a phrase does not stand up because the verb is missing; in the end I
> >> add not three things but four! I hope however that the sense of the post
> >> was clear. Below an errata corrige in capital blocks...
> >>
> >> Apoogies.
> >>
> >> riccardo
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> At 17:26 +0100 16-11-1999, riccardo bellofiore wrote:
> >> >At 7:32 -0500 12-11-1999, Gerald Levy wrote:
> >> >>Hi Nicky. May I ask you a question?
> >> >>
> >> >>> My own readings of 'Capital' are guided by value-form perspectives;
> >> >>> in particular, those associated with Japanese political economy.
> >> >>
> >> >>What do you see as the relationship between value-form theories (e.g.
> >> >>Reuten-Williams) and those "value-form" perspectives associated with
> >> >>Japanese political economy (Uno?; [Makoto] Itoh?; other?). In other words,
> >> >>what do you see as the commonalities and differences in perspective of
> >> >>these two (or more) theories? And, why do you refer to the perspectives
> >> >>from [some] Marxists in Japan as being "value-form perspectives"?
> >> >>
> >> >>In solidarity, Jerry
> >> >
> >> >Dear OPE-L comrades,
> >> >
> >> > me too as Mike W. am busy until the new millenium [that, according
> >> >to my quantitative measures, begins the 1st January of 2001], hence this is
> >> >a lonely whisper in the wilderness of karoshi. This mail is simply to
> >> >signal that those interested on the issue of value-form and abstract labour
> >> >as the substance of value may find interesting the papers by Geert, Chris
> >> >and myself in the special issue of the Rassegna di Politica Economica (in
> >> >English) which was quoted by Jerry in OPE-L 1540 (reproduced below).
> >> >
> >> > I think that the reference to Marx is empty if we are not able to
> >> >hold together the value-form perspective and the notion that abstract
> >> >labour is the substance of value. I think we must stress (as Rubin?) that
> >> >there is a double measure in Marx: an 'external' measure of value (money)
> >> >and an 'immanent' measure of value (labour). The substance of value - Marx
> >> >writes both in the first and in the last version of the first chapter of
> >> >Capital - is labour, measured in time units. This position is contested by
> >> >Geert and is upheld by me in the journal. The fact that I see the two
> >> >dimensions (money and labour) as inextricably joined in Marx does not mean
> >> >that there are no contradictions in Marx's deductions, nor that these
> >> >contradictions are not mortal. It simply means that if we arrive to the
> >> >conclusion that form and substance of value cannot be reconciled, Marx's
> >> >theoretical edifice crumbles down. One may then choose between
> >> >Benetti-Cartelier (who are value-form theorists) and Sraffians (who refer
> >> >to 'objective' conditions of production).
> >> >
> >> > In short my position is exactly the same as Chris's in the Rivista.
> >> >Chris writes: "Money is the only measure of success; it is the existent
> >> >form of 'abstract wealth' (Marx), and this means that the activity
> >> >producing it is itself posited as abstract, that the living labour employed
> >> >in the capitalist labour process counts only as an abstraction of itself,
> >> >*as a passage of time*". And again: "Since capital produces value out of
> >> >exploiting workers in Napoleoni's sense, the *time* of this exploitation is
> >> >an appropriate measure of value".
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, Chris's paper in the Rivista is one of the best I've read
> >> >in the last decade. I agree with it 99,99 % and I am sure this judgement is
> >> >not affected by the fact that Chris refers several times to three papers of
> >> >mine subscribing to my views! The funny thing is that in a private
> >> >conversation after the paper being published I DISCOVERED that Chris now
> >> >seems to
> >> >disagree with himself and to agree with Geert...
> >> >
> >> > Let me add FOUR things: (i) that not only the value-form but the
> >> >same substance of value in Chris's quotes (and in my view) is capitalistic
> >> >(I strongly disagree with the view that abstract labour is a
> >> >transhistorical notion); (ii) that Nicky's definition of the value-form
> >> >approach fits exactly Colletti's reading of Marx; (iii) that to say, as
> >> >Nicky does, that the 'Ricardian' (Sraffian) interpretation is that value is
> >> >labour embodied is ambiguous: this the interpretation *of Marx* given by
> >> >Steedman and Garegnani etc, but of course the Sraffians strongly disagree
> >> >with Marx on this point, and deny that value is labour embodied (hence,
> >> >they are on the same side of the barricade with the value-form critics of
> >> >traditional marxism); (iv) that in my view the abstract labour theory of
> >> >value is not a theory of relative prices, but a theory of the origin of
> >> >value and surplus value and of the class distribution of income - that is,
> >> >it is a macromonetary theory of exploitation. The quantitative side of
> >> >value theory must not be confused with theory of relative prices.
> >> >
> >> >best
> >> >
> >> >riccardo
> >> >--------
> >> >
> >> >OPE-L 1540
> >> >
> >> >David and Paul Z:
> >> >
> >> >Since we're mentioning journals, may I mention an issue of a journal
> >> >(that, as it happens, I received in the mail today)?
> >> >
> >> >Note the familiar names.
> >> >
> >> >In solidarity, Jerry
> >> >
> >> >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >> >
> >> > _Rivisti Di Politica Economica_
> >> >
> >> >Year LXXXIX - 3rd Series April-May 1999 No. IV-V
> >> >
> >> > CLASSICAL AND MARXIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY:
> >> > A DEBATE ON CLAUDIO NAPOLEONI'S VIEWS
> >> >
> >> > edited by
> >> >
> >> > Mario Baldassarri and Riccardo Bellofiore
> >> >
> >> >"The Economic Thought of Claudio Napoleoni"
> >> > by Giorgio Rodano
> >> >
> >> >"Preface"
> >> > by Riccardo Bellofiore
> >> >
> >> >"The Value of Labour Value. The Italian Debate on Marx: 1968-1976"
> >> > by Riccardo Bellofiore
> >> >
> >> >"Accumulation, Breakdown Crises, Disproportionality, and Effective
> >> > Demand"
> >> > by Joseph Halevi
> >> >
> >> >"The Source versus Measure Obstacle in Value Theory"
> >> > by Geert Reuten
> >> >
> >> >"Market and Division of Labour: a Critical Reformulation of Marx's
> >> > View"
> >> > by Carlo Benetti and Jean Cartelier
> >> >
> >> >"Napoleoni on Labour and Exploitation"
> >> > by Christopher J. Arthur
> >> >
> >> >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Riccardo Bellofiore
> >> >Office: Department of Economics
> >> > Piazza Rosate, 2
> >> > I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
> >> >Home: Via Massena, 51
> >> > I-10128 Torino, Italy
> >> >e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
> >> >tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
> >> > +39 035 277501 (dept.)
> >> > +39 011 5819619 (home)
> >> >fax: +39 035 249975
> >>
> >> Riccardo Bellofiore
> >> Office: Department of Economics
> >> Piazza Rosate, 2
> >> I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
> >> Home: Via Massena, 51
> >> I-10128 Torino, Italy
> >> e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
> >> tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
> >> +39 035 277501 (dept.)
> >> +39 011 5819619 (home)
> >> fax: +39 035 249975
>
> Riccardo Bellofiore
> Office: Department of Economics
> Piazza Rosate, 2
> I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
> Home: Via Massena, 51
> I-10128 Torino, Italy
> e-mail bellofio@cisi.unito.it, bellofio@unibg.it
> tel: +39 035 277545 (direct)
> +39 035 277501 (dept.)
> +39 011 5819619 (home)
> fax: +39 035 249975



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 17:29:15 EST