Hello all, 1) There must be talking at cross purposes re 'the theory of value'. As far as Marx was concerned, such a theory must grasp the 'substance' of value and it's 'form', as well as its magnitude. From this (correct, imo) perspective neither the Sraffians nor Steve K [judging by Steve's rejection of the LTV] has a very advanced 'theory of value'; all there is, is a theory of value *magnitude* (coupled with a rejection of Marx's own problematic re substance and form). What do other people actually mean by 'a theory of value'? 2) Rakesh, you remind us of Marx's critique of Ricardo's 'forced abstractions', his (and his followers) 'word games'; what Marx elsewhere called his purely *formal* method of abstraction. Now, this is the method of analytical logic. So you appear to have contradicted your earlier statement that you are dubious as to whether or not Ricardo's problems were rooted in Ricardo's analytical logic (I am assuming you agree with Marx's critique). Best wishes, Andy On 3 Jun 2001, at 23:54, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote: > Isn't Marx most contemptuous of Malthus' population theory (the > greatest calumy ever heaped on the human race or some such what > unforgettable line though alas I have forgotten) while at the same > time underlining that Ricardo could only respond with forced > abstractions and his followers with pathetic word games in the face > of Malthus's valid objections? >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT