Andrew, what you are saying seems to me profoundly important, so let me think about it. Best, R > > >I appear to be completely failing to communicate my point here! >Still this is a devilishly complex business so maybe it is not >surprising. My objection is to the term 'disallow' above. To 'disallow' >something is to rule it out by stipulation. The question this raises is >how do we decide what to disallow? My point is that Marx is >following the objective 'contours' of the object in making his >assumptions. Very simply this means he is making assumptions >that can be relaxed later in the analysis, without invalidating the >prior analysis. This is only possible because the object itself is >structured across levels of abstraction. 'Abstraction' thereby has an >ontological as well as epistemological aspect. [But note that the >object actually exists as a concrete whole, a synthesis of many >determinations, from the most abstract to the concrete. So it is >vital that Marx develops from the abstract to the concrete]. > >You use the term 'stipulation' etc. as if Marx is imposing these. But >he is simply following the nature of the object; an object which is a >'structured totality'. Don't you agree? > > >A second point I have been making is this: Marx makes absolutely >clear in chs 4-6 that the assumption of equivalent exchange is not >needed to establish that lab / lab power is the sole source of SV. >This is absolutely crucial. Marx could not have been any clearer >about this. I hope you agree. (yes, Marx goes on to assume >equivalent exchange - but only after making clear that this is >innocuous as regards the argument on the source of SV) > >Many thanks, > >Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST