Dear IWGVT: You ought to think of getting someone to produce a longish paper along the lines of "Value Theory for Idiots." Maybe "Value Theory for Neo-Classical Economists." Something not designed to prove VT can be as obscure or elegant as NC theory. Ideally it would convey examples of the practical uses to which the theory has been put. If there is such a thing already, please let me know. mbs ---------- The principal justification which economics offers for excluding its foremost critic is the proposition that, whatever the merits of his contribution on individual issues, his concept of value is invalid because it leads to internal inconsistencies. A growing body of independent research shows that this argument is no longer sustainable. We conclude that the discussion on value should re-open without the presupposition of any established standard, tradition or source of authority regarding either value or Marx. The IWGVT defends no particular theory of value beyond arguing that the concept itself is indispensable. It does believe it is possible to assess the merits of contesting theories in debate. It seeks to create an atmosphere for this debate-which does not at present exist-such that all value theories, and all readings of value theorists, may discuss on an equal footing, referring in their support neither to the evidence of authority nor the conviction of doctrine but to reasoned and logical discussion based on textual evidence for readings and factual evidence for theories. Six successive mini-conferences have provided a widespread, gratifying and international response to our initial appeal. The number of panels and panelists has grown steadily, as has participation from those outside the United States. The IWGVT is beginning to be recognized as a forum for all those interested in the discussion of value, irrespective of theoretical orientation. Alan Freeman School of Social Sciences University of Greenwich Avery Hill Road London SE9 2HB (44) 181 858 6865 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03
