From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2007 - 08:48:23 EDT
Okay! AS --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > What analysis of the logic of exchange shows is that > there must > be a conserved scalar quantity in exchange. It does > not prove > that equal amounts of labour must be exchanged. One > can not prove > this by logical argument, it needs empirical > evidence. > > What it does *suggest* is that a dynamical system > with a conserved > quantity like this may have an attractor that is > 'captured' by the > strongest signal going into the system which is > labour, a phenomenon > that is perhaps like an induced resonance. It does > not indicate > that there will be an exact correspondence, only > that there will > be a strong correlation between the induced > resonance and the driving > signal. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On > Behalf Of ajit sinha > Sent: 25 April 2007 11:53 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte > > --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > > > ajit sinha wrote: > > > > >Thanks Mike! > > > > > >I think the fundamental problem with such > reasoning > > is > > >the positing of exchange relation as =. There is > no > > >compelling reason for understanding an exchange > > >relation as a relation of equality. What one can > > say > > >is that the VALUES of the two commodities > exchanged > > >are equal. But this is a tautology and already > > >presupposes VALUES. > > > > > >Secondly, the move from exchange of equivalents > to > > >exchange of equivalent ABSTRACT labor is always > the > > >weakest link and relies only on assertions. The > > usual > > >rhetorical trick employed at this stage is "Marx > > shows > > >that..." or "Marx proves that ..." or "Marx > argues > > >that ...". The reason is clear. The author, > whoever > > >the author happens to be, finds it very difficult > > to > > >argue the case on the merit of it, so the > > invocation > > >of Marx is introduced to bridge this gap in > > reasoning. > > >Cheers, ajit sinha > > >--- Michael Schauerte <yk3mk3@MY.EMAIL.NE.JP> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The alternative is to show that the metric space > of > > commodities > > shares the features of a system governed by a > scalar > > conservation law. > > This does not prove that the scalar being > conserved > > is labour value, it only > > shows that hypothesising something called value is > > equivalent to > > hypothesising > > something called energy or charge in the case of > > other systems governed > > by conservation laws. > > Establishing that it is labour that is the scalar > > being conserved is an > > empirical question. > _________________________ > Let's accept the assumptions and suppose that what > is > conserved is labor. Will it then necessarily prove > that exchange of commodities must imply exchange of > equal amount of labor? Cheers, ajit sinha > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT