[ show plain text ]
>
>According to my "macro-monetary" interpretation of Marx's theory, the
>initial presuppositions are quantities of money-capital - the M in M-C-M'
>(along with the quantity of abstract labor and the value of money).
>According to the predominant Sraffian interpretation of Marx's theory, on
>the other hand, the initial presuppositions are instead the quantities of
>the physical inputs to production and the real wage, which I have argued
>is a fundamental misinterpretation of the logic of Marx's theory.
Fred, ok vol i, chap i analysis demonstrates that value or social labor can
only be represented as other than it is--in monetary terms (Patrick
Murray). This demonstration of the necessity of money (Fred Moseley) then
casts doubt on any modelling of capitalist society that takes as its givens
or presuppositions physical quantities (see Fred Moseley again). A theory
of capitalist society has to be one of monetary production. Brilliant.
Now what does Hegel have to do with this? Keynes recognized the last point
without knowledge of Hegel; indeed James Galbraith has argued that Keynes
was inspired by Einstein's use of non Euclidean geometry in breaking with a
two dimensional classical economics in his development of a monetary theory
of production. Riccardo and others of course could speak to this.
Even if turns out the value form conforms to the the peculiar Hegelian
logic of essence or if the C-M-C circuit has the properties of the Hegelian
syllogism, why should we treat this as anything more than a freaky
coincidence? If a logic of essence is at work, it is not because of the
superiority of Hegel's logic but because objective class relations--the
private production of commodities by means of wage labor--mean that social
labor can only be represented as money.
Fred, you have made such signal contributions to the clarifications of
Marx's method (though I don't think I agree with the understanding of
prices of production as centers of gravity, I hope that the monetary-macro
method can be dynamized sufficiently that it's clear why such centers of
gravity can be nothing more than vanishing points). At any rate, why do you
want spoil your excellent expositional skills by a descent into a Hegelian
mysticism?
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:43 EDT