[ show plain text ]
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Gil Skillman wrote:
> Elegantly put, Michael. This certainly gets to the crux of
> the matter. What's missing, in response to your question,
> is a coherent basis for believing that price-value
> equivalence has any analytical relevance whatsoever for the
> phenomenon under discussion.
I'm aware of Gil's criticisms of the argument in the early
chapters of Capital, and I think Gil's argument has something
going for it, but the implication of this statement goes beyond
what I had previously understood him to be arguing.
Can you clarify, Gil? It seems to me that the assumption of
price-value correspondence /does/, prima facie, create a serious
puzzle as to the origin of surplus value -- a puzzle which calls
for Marx's solution in terms of the distinction between the
value created by labour and the value of labour-power.
[I'm talking about a world (ours) in which commodities are
produced by capitalist enterprises that hire labour (-power) in
order to produce commodities, not a parallel universe of
outworking.]
Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT