> This illustrates the non-equivalence between real and symbolic appropriation in the orthodox formulation
> which does not deal with credit/debt.
Hi Dave:
I'm not sure then what you mean by the "orthodox formulation" because
Marx and many variations of Marxist theory have incorporated conceptions
of credit and debt. Do you mean a "labor-embodied" perspective?
Whether those formulations are satisfactory is a question which could be
discussed. There are non-orthodox formulations, such as that in surplus
approach theory, which don't include money and hence exclude the possibility
of indebtedness and credit. Your issues raise concerns for those formulations.
I think the problem with your numerical examples might stem from the fact
that they are neither contextualized in terms of the *reproduction process*
or allow for *spatial and temporal dimensions*. (NB: there are other issues
too: because you don't distinguish between c and the surplus product, a
percentage of "profit" will depreciate.)
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Apr 8 07:14:36 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 30 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT