Re [OPE-L:4964-5]: (from 4865) > Why discuss > something if the implications of the different possible > outcomes aren't clear and agreed-upon in advance? > What good would discussion do? The debate about what can cause a change in prices of production in Marx's theory is not primarily a debate about "implications". It is a debate about what Marx's perspective on this topic was. *If* there are two different interpretations which can both bring forth clear but contradictory evidence (e.g. Marx said one thing very clearly in one place but said something else and very different in another section or source), *then* putting the two different perspectives in a wider context by discussing the "implications" might be in order. In *this* case though we have a clear and unambivalent and unrefuted statement by Marx about what can cause a change in prices of production. Thus, *in this case*, either one side acknowledges the content of Marx's clear statement as an expression of Marx's perspective *or* (and this is _entirely_ legitimate) one brings forth evidence from other sections of Marx which seem to contradict the prior evidence. If one were successful in then showing that Marx had two very different and contradictory positions on this issue, then one would have demonstrated that Marx's theory on this issue is self-contradictory and logically flawed. Yet, this is not a conclusion that the TSSI can come to without abandoning one of its key assertions (they might say "results") about how Marx's theory is not self-contradictory nor logically flawed. So -- with all respect to Paul Z -- unless an alternative reading which shows that Marx's very clear and unambivalent statement is, after all, unclear and ambiguous -- then we MUST conclude that *either* AK's perspective on what can cause a change in prices of production in Marx's theory is erroneous *or* Marx's theory itself is erroneous. In the presence of such a "smoking gun" quotation, no other options exist. What is perhaps *most* interesting about this situation is *how rarely* there is a definitive quotation (a "smoking gun") from Marx that settles a textual debate. And, let us not forget, this is and must be first and foremost a textual debate since it is a debate not about the validity of different concepts of prices of production but is rather exclusively about different interpretations of Marx's theory. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:39 EST