FW: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

Sent mistakingly to Ian alone. Intended for list. / JL
 
>>> I think one can say that the simple conception B allows us to understand/ is
>>> a step towards understanding/ that conception A is the dynamic reality, ie
>>> how the law of value is active day to day. It is a reflection of Marx's
>>> method of 'reconstruction' of an understanding of reality, it is not a
>>> question of using both in the sense that both are concretely true, but that
>>> that your B precedes A logically so that the law of value is shown to work
>>> itself out, ie that the law of value can be proved to exert an historically
>>> determinate role as long as current class relations continue as they are.
>>
>> I think you are onto something here, in the sense that perhaps Marx
>> also struggled with the precise meaning of labor-values, although
>> perhaps you would favor looking for a consistent interpretation of
>> this aspect of his theory. I do not know.

Hi Ian:

I guess I understood what Paul B meant somewhat differently. Rather than asserting
that Marx 'struggled' with the meaning of value, I think he (PB) meant that
the theory presented in Volume One was modified (i.e. developed, concretized)
in Volume Three of _Capital_. The issue here - which I think
Paul is pointing to - is methodological and concerns Marx's method of abstraction.
But, I'll let PB speak for himself....

In solidarity, jerry_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Sep 3 14:17:57 2009