===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
I am not sure that much more of value can come out of a discussion at  
this level of generality, but ... 
 
Claudio wrote 
> I don't think Michael missed my point. Rather, he gave the expected  
> response from somebody who believes that Marxism as a whole is a viable  
> theoretical approach to understand economic and social dynamics. 
 
I am not sure how Claudio knows that this is what I think - although  
in fact I do.. 
 
> To this my  
> response is that your arguments, though sometimes useful, do not take  
> account of a fundamental aspect. 
 
Which arguments? - the brief conversation on this list? Arguments  
contained in my published work? 
 
> Marx wanted to construct a scientific  
> theory of society. For this he needed a rigorous theory of labor value, and  
> a rigorous theory of wages.  
 
Yes (with perhaps some caveat about whether we agree about what it is  
to be 'scientific') - but not necessarily a post-Sraffian linear  
production theory. I assume you are not conflating the rigour of a  
theory with the precise quantitative determination of variables whose  
real world referents are not so determined? Or with formal modelling  
with no care for its interpretation? 
 
> Very general observations on the standard of  
> living, the abstract nature of labor, etc. etc., though interesting and  
> maybe innovative, did not suffice.  
 
I agree - a browse through recent Marxist literature on economics  
will furnish many and diverse and rigorous theories on these matters,  
some couched in formal models. 
 
> To his purpose there must be a strict,  
> rigorous and identifiable link between the quantity of embodied labor and  
> relative prices. 
 
What grounds do you have for saying that Marx, let alone modern  
Marxists need any theory of relative prices, let alone one based on  
embodied labour? The reason I ask is that it is a matter of on-going  
controversy within the community of Marxist scholars. 
 
> I don't think  
Marxists today can escape all this and  
> pretend that a coherent solution of Marx's difficulty doesn't have any  
> implication for them. 
> 
 
Nor do I - although it is unclear to  which of Marx's 'difficulties '  
you are referring. 
 
Dr Michael Williams  
Department of Economics 
School of Social Sciences 
De Montfort University 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]