[ show plain text ]
P.J.Wells@OPEN.AC.UK wrote:
> Many thanks to Steve for the quote from Wage-Labour and Capital; it seems to
> me that this can be read as strong textual evidence for Fred M's (and of
> course also Andrew K and Alan F's) interpretation. The crucial words are:
>
> "If in exchange for these goods [the commodities sold by the
> capitalist] he
> > receives a quantity of other goods whose production has cost less, he has
> > lost. If he receives in exchange for his goods a quantity of other goods
> > whose production has cost more, he has gained."
> >
> Assuming that Marx understood the "other goods" received by the
> capitalist to be means of production, this seems about as clear a statement
> as one could wish for that he *intended* a system in which input prices did
> not necessarily equal input values, and that his alleged mistake in the
> transformation problem was not an oversight.
>
> Julian
________________
I'm leaving for Delhi in five minutes, so I cannot go in details here. I have
only one question to Julian, are you serious? In my opinion, it should be
mandetory for all the present day Marxists to take some course in
interpretation, and history of economic thought. Otherwise Marxist scholarship
is doomed for ever. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT