From: Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 09:17:22 EST
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Paul Cockshott wrote: > Ian Wright wrote: > > > I think there is work to be done relating your kind of interpretation > > of Marx's theory to the N-R interpretation, rather than assuming that > > they are simply written in different languages, and never the twain > > shall meet. I don't think I'm being naive in thinking that rational > > people, Marixsts and neo-Ricardians alike, can mutually learn from > > each other via critical engagement with the other's theoretical > > framework. We are tying to talk about the same object. > > > I think this is a very fair point. If one insists that every subsequent > theorist > must use exactly the same linguistic and conceptual framework as the > previous > one, then there could be no theoretical development. One has to at least > initially assume that Sraffa is talking about the same reality and trying > to construct a way of theorising it. > > -- > Paul Cockshott Paul, as I discussed in a previous post, I am not insisting that every theory use the same conceptual frameowrk. Rather, I am emphasizing that Marx's conceptual framework is very different from Sraffa's conceptual framework, and thus that the conclusions derived from Sraffa's framework do not apply to marx's framework. I also agree (with some reservations) that Sraffa's theory is about the same reality as Marx's theory. But I argue that Sraffian conclusions about that reality (e.g. values not linked to prices) are not correct conclusions, because the Sraffian framework is not the correct framework for analyzing capitalist reality. Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 00:00:02 EST