From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 14:12:39 EST
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0026-1386.2004.00184.x/ abs/ Hi Phil. > From the abstract: > "Marx's propositions on value and exploitation are tautologically obtained > (i) by constructing a money costs theory of value, where by assumption values > are equal to market prices ..." > I cannot see that as a defect. It's not a defect to _assume_ that (in the aggregate) commodity values equal market prices _if_ that can later be shown to be a (legitimate) _result_ (logical unfolding) of the analysis rather than merely a presumption. (the previous sentence is in response to your comment, not the article by Veneziani or any TSS authors.) This is a methodological imperative. In the assumption of value = price there is unity (simple unity). Yet, there is a systematic divergence of individual values from market prices (diversity) that, in Marx's theory, leads to the concept of prices of production (unity-in-diversity). Of course, whether this is satisfactorily achieved in Marx's theory is a subject that has been debated _ad nauseum_, but the point that I'm making here (having to do with assumptions and 'givens') is a methodological one related to the unfolding and ordering of the analysis in a systematic dialectical presentation of the bourgeois mode of production. (Jeez ... I'm beginning to sound like an amalgam of Mike W and Tony S.). Are you going to the EEA conference in D.C. this year? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 00:00:01 EST