From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu May 27 2004 - 01:42:21 EDT
--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU> wrote: > > Marx after all criticized Ricardo for forgetting > that though the > technical means for surplus labor may exist, that > does not make > surplus labor exist in reality. "For this to occur, > the labourer > must be compelled to work in excess of [necessary] > time, and this > compulsion exerted by > capital. This is missing in Ricardo's [and Sraffa's > workrb] and > therefore the whole struggle over the regulation of > the normal > working day." > TSVII, p. 406 I think this quote has been unduly > ignored. ______________ But not by me! You can find this quote given a great deal of importance in my paper, 'The transformation Problem: Is the Standard Commodity a Solution' in RRPE, 2000. And if my memory serves me right, probably also in 'Revisiting the Value Controversy' in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol.15, 1996. In my opinion, Sraffa will have no problem with this. Further, in my opinion, Sraffian prices are not necessarily "equilibrium" prices. The system also has nothing to do with "full employment". Sraffa was not ignorant about money. His early work was on money itself, and his criticism of Mussolini's monetary policy caused him a lot of trouble. Further, his critique of Hayak is also about money. The trouble is that most of the critics of Sraffa know next to nothing about Sraffa's project. I have a draft criticism (10 typed pages) of A.K. Sen's recent paper in JEL on 'Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci', which may clarify some of the philosophical point of Sraffa's project. If there is enough interest and the list manager allows, I'll be happy to send it along for a discussion on OPE-L. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT