Andrew
------
As I noted to Allin
recently, I maintain that the only reason you all think your interpreta-
tion is so obvious, natural, etc. is that it is the ruling interpretation
and has been so for the longest time
Paul
----
I read Marx's Capital before I read Sraffa,
Morishima etc, and before I heard Steadman
lecture to me.
At no stage did it ever occur to me that
what Marx meant by the value of a commodity
was the direct labour plus the price of the
means of production.
If for a century or more everyone reading
Capital arrived at the conclusion that Marx
meant that the value of a commodity was the
amount of labour necessary to produce it, then
either we are dealing with morphic resonance on
a massive scale, or, more plausibly, this view
has been around so long because this is what
Marx actually wrote.