From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Apr 26 2007 - 10:49:35 EDT
It is broadly similar, but it goes a bit beyond this by arguing why the relationship has to be transitive in a commodity producing system and looking at the relationship between this and symetry relations in the laws of nature. Allin and I first put the argument forward in 'Values Law Value's Metric', in Freeman Kliman and Wells, 'the new Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics', 2004 but the paper in question was out as a report in 1996. The argument is developed further in chapter 9 of 'Information Money and Value' in a book that Allin, Ian and I have done, a prepublication draft of which can be dowloaded from my web page: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Pen-L Fred Moseley Sent: Thu 4/26/2007 2:09 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte Quoting Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK>: > What analysis of the logic of exchange shows is that there must > be a conserved scalar quantity in exchange. Hi Paul, Would you please explain this argument further? Have you written it up somewhere? If so, please send me a copy. I argue that Marx's argument in SEction 1 assumes that the general system of commodity exchange is transitive (mutually consistent), from which it follows that commodity exchange must be the exchange of equivalents (as discussed in my previous post). Is your argument similar to this, or different? Thanks. Comradely, Fred ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT