Paul, >I was supporting Rakesh, not criticizing him, by citing evidence that Marx >was clear on what he was assuming in Vol. 1 -- price-value equivalence. That was unclear for me. >If we assume price-value equivalence, we can move onto other questions >raised by Marx's understanding of the capitalist mode of production. I >have not been convinced that much is learned, one way or another, by >worrying about the transformation problem. In other words, in my view, >there are much deeper problems to consider than this particular interest >(almost obsession) of Marxist economists. I think you're right because, imho, there is nothing at stake there --and I tried to show that in my research. Regarding the "obsession". This is a psycological feature which can affect some people if they have been under specific situations. In my case, I have heard so much about that coming from the anti-Marxist camp. Perhaps you have had the opportunity of working in a better enviroment than other people. Alejandro Ramos
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST