Re: [OPE-L] Freds argument and Gillman

From: Jerry Levy (jerry_levy@VERIZON.NET)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 11:00:13 EST

• Next message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Lapavitsas on the financial crisis"
• Previous message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Fred's argument about the deduction (retro)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Freds argument and Gillman"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

 If you like, just read through discussons in the OPE-L archives. You will see that many contributors assume that total profits must equal total surplus values (and that total prices must equal total values) and that Marx's argument must fail, if this is not the case.



Hi Jurriaan:

Well, yes, but the context of those discussions was generally
the "transformation problem".  Unproductive labour  (along with many other topics) are abstracted from by Marx in his exposition
of the transformation of values into prices of production. This relates - [of course, you know what I'm going to say next!] - to different levels of abstraction (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Maybe we should discuss to what extent the "two equalities" should be interpreted as abstractions versus ontological claims?

In solidarity, Jerry

• Next message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Lapavitsas on the financial crisis"
• Previous message: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Fred's argument about the deduction (retro)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Freds argument and Gillman"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST