[ show plain text ]
Fred,
I'm so far out of understanding your point that I don't even understand
what I don't understand. When Marx ASSUMES price-value equivalence in
Volume 1 there is no mileage to be gotten out of reproducing quotes like
"the VALUE of the commodity IS x SHILLINGS."
It seems to me you have to go to the transformation problem to demonstrate
whatever it is you are attempting. Otherwise, you can be accused of being
"on the surface of bourgeois society [in which] the wage of the laborer
appears as the price of labor, a certain quantity of money that is paid
for a certain quantity of labor" (first sentence of Part on "Wages"). But
this is not you. So, I'm out of the loop of knowing what is going on.
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/07/00:
>On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Paul Zarembka wrote:
>> >5. ... But the point here, to begin with, is that Marx's theory
>> >in Volume 1 is NOT about the determination OF labor-values, unrelated to
>> >money magnitudes. Rather, the theory is about the determination of money
>> >magnitudes, and especially dM, BY labor-values.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> I must be missing something. Paul Z.
>>
>Paul, why is this so hard to understand? Marx's theory in Volume 1
>attempts to explain the monetary phenomenon of dM. The explanation is in
>terms of labor-times. dM is proportional to surplus-labor-time. Volume 1
>is not about surplus-labor-time by itself, unrelated to dM.
>You may disagree with this interpretation, but don't you agree that this
>is at least a possible interpretation? And, I would add, an
>interpretation for which there is substantial textual support, which I
>would be happy to continue to examine.
>Comradely,
>Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT