[ show plain text ]
Perhaps; but if you read Marx, you will see that he treated these, not as
"border commodities" in which the laws of value were irrelevant and supply
and demand ruled the roost, but ones which lead to dialectical inversions
(use-value determining value) within his general analysis of the commodity.
In other words, there is something much richer to Marx's analysis of these
pseudo-commodities than simply a statement that they constitute exceptions
to his broader analysis.
Cheers,
Steve
>From: bhandari@Princeton.EDU (Rakesh Bhandari)
>Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Subject: [OPE-L:3094] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: empirical verification of
>interpretations of Marx? (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 10:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
>
>But Steve I would agree that the price of money or securities are not
>governed by value even in mediate form as they are not freely reproducible
>by social labor--neither are rare art works or land. I don't deny that a
>capitalist can pay too much or too little for a piece of machinery. I deny
>that machinery can be the source of new value; if it's gotten cheap this
>represents a transfer of value from machine marker to machine user, not the
>creation of new value. At any rate in terms of money and securities, the
>laws of supply and demand have freer reign here exactly because they are
>not freely reproducible by social labor. These are border commodities
>which do not have bulk properties.
>Yours, Rakesh
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT