[OPE-L:7755] Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!"

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 19:55:16 EDT

• Next message: Michael Perelman: "[OPE-L:7756] Re: Fred's"
• Previous message: rakeshb@stanford.edu: "[OPE-L:7753] virus warning"
• Next in thread: Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:7765] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Reply: Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:7765] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "[OPE-L:7774] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Re Fred's [7754]:

"no textual evidence at all ...."   ???

Putting aside for now citations from Marx's manuscripts,
including  the _Grundrisse_ (which were discussed previously
in the "ideal vs. real value" thread), let us consider
the following sections from _Capital_:

(all page numbers below are from Penguin/Vintage
editions)

Volume 2:

124-125
145-146
203
205-206
295-297
396
399
418-419
423

Volume 3:

134-135
352-353
393
966-967
982

An additional bit of evidence is Marx's repeated use of the
expression "actualization of surplus-value" 
(which I believe Riccardo noted in past discussions has been 
mistakenly  translated as "realization of surplus-value").   Why do 
you suppose he referred to the ACTUALization or 
REALization of surplus-value, Fred?   Was it a "slip" 
on his part?  Or did he know the meaning of the terms
"actual" and "real"?

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Michael Perelman: "[OPE-L:7756] Re: Fred's"
• Previous message: rakeshb@stanford.edu: "[OPE-L:7753] virus warning"
• Next in thread: Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:7765] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Reply: Fred B. Moseley: "[OPE-L:7765] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Reply: Riccardo Bellofiore: "[OPE-L:7774] Re: Re: "Hic Rhodus, hic salta!""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 09 2002 - 00:00:01 EDT