From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@buffalo.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 07 2003 - 12:49:49 EST
John, Your posting summarizes your book. You don't address: i) "why didn't Marx, on the eighth page, call the reader's attention to his project [as you describe it] of 'theoretically recasting' of that supposedly Ricardian value?"; ii) the CHANGES by Marx represented by the three editions of Vol. 1; iii) "labor power" as a MAJOR new theoretical concept distinguishing Marx from Ricardo; iv) the fact of total working hours of workers compared to the time required to produce subsistence needs (a fact which you say cannot be described by 'values' even in the simplest of capitalist reproduction). Taking your argument to the extreme, surplus value cannot be measured and so we don't even know if profit is associated with surplus value (Steedman or no Steedman) or the color of grapefruits. Surplus value becomes a mystery. Yours opens the road to revisions of all sorts, including just dumping value and surplus value. Paul Z. *********************************************************************** "Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and Eminent Economists", Vol. 20 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 00:00:00 EST