Re Andrew's [OPE-L:4937]: > Fred writes that "I would be willing to concede that > my criticism of your interpretation of Marx's prices of > production is invalid if there were passages in Marx's > manuscripts (the more the better) in which he explicitly > stated that prices of production may change due to > input prices not being equal to output prices, as in your > interpretation." > This is too narrow a basis for discussion. Why must > there be > explicit statements? Why isn't it good enough that this > be the > implication of Marx's theory? When one interpretation puts forward clear empirical evidence in the form of unambiguous and un-refuted quotations, then a discussion about implications is secondary and instead deals with another question: whether Marx's theory is self-contradictory. For indeed, if Marx were to very explicitly and clearly say one thing about what can cause a change in prices of production yet his overall theory implied something else, then one (in this case, Andrew) would have only succeeded in showing that Marx is inconsistent and ambiguous and self-contraditory. Yet, this result would be in opposition to everything else that the TSSIM has claimed. > You have still not answered the question about your > own > interpretation rather than your critique of the TSSI. You should know by now that Fred like to focus on one issue at a time. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST