Steve Keen's OPE-L 4873 puzzles me. I do not see that, or how, the implication of my comment is to reject the ceteris paribus assumption or its equivalent. I employ that assumption all the time. As for the rest, market movements in wages weren't part of Marx's explanation of the origin of surplus-value, but they certainly *did* "form a part of Marx's explanation of the ... magnitude of surplus[-value]." (For just one of many examples, see his discussion in Ch. 25 of Capital, Vol. I.) And it is a good thing, too. Because if Marx's explanation of what determines the magnitude of surplus-value *excluded* these wage movements, he would (by definition) have been claiming that the magnitude of surplus-value is NOT influenced by these wage movements. And that would have been false. It is one thing to focus on some of the many determinants of a phenomenon. It is another to claim that they are the sole determinants. Andrew Kliman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:38 EST