On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU) wrote: > In 3947 Paul C wrote: > > >Note that the definition of value in vol 1 is done in abstraction from > >changes in technology over time. > > False. From the beginning, Marx emphasizes that an increase in the > amount of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in > the magnitude of value... I guess you read Paul's first sentence but didn't pause to read the next. Of course Marx talks about the effects of changes in labour productivity on values. What he doesn't do is explore the implications of continuous technical change for the very definition of value (as the labour-time socially necessary for a commodity's production). That definition is unproblematic (unambiguous) if one is doing comparative statics -- figuring the value of a commodity "before" and "after" a discrete change in technology. It needs more work in a context of continuous change. In the post to which Paul was replying you mention that I hadn't responded to an earlier one of yours. True, but -- I hope this is not regarded as a "flame" -- you have a certain tendency to shoot from the hip without apparently investing much effort in understanding the opposed point of view, which can make extended debate a bit wearisome. Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST