Andrew, concerning your comment >Just off the cuff, I am sympathetic with Gil's argument that Marx does have >a method of starting out with simple (unrealistic assumptions), like the one >that prices=values. Simple reproduction is another stage in the complexity.I >can't understand why you are frightened of simpe commodity production. Thuis >seems to be extremely useful in defining what capitalism is and isn't. Why >does it have to be capitalist? Its difficult to see on the email where you >are coming from. For what it's worth, I don't have any problem per se with the simplicity or "unrealism" of Marx's assumption, following KI chapter 5, that prices=values. My issue is with the analytical justification he gives for this "simplifying assumption," which I argue is logically invalid, inconsistent with his historical analysis of usury and merchant capital, and counterproductive with respect to his intended goal of understanding the systemic basis of capitalist exploitation. If you'd like a short reprise of my argument on this score (which I don't presume...), we can pursue this offline. Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT