On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Gerald_A_Levy wrote: > > 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. I agree with Jerry here. On the basis of the textual evidence presented thus far, I think it has to be concluded that Marx's prices of production change only if there is a change of productivity somewhere in the economy. The question then becomes: what are the implications of this assumption, and are these implications logically consistent? But the implications of this assumption are not a criterion on the basis of which one decides whether or not Marx made this assumption. That question has already been answered by the textual evidence: Marx did indeed make this assumption. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST