A quick reply before I hit the road for the day. Gil questions:
*centrality* of the case of price-value equivalence to the Marxian
theory of capitalist exploitation. Why focus on it at all, given that
a) as Marx acknowledges, prices typically diverge from values,
<snip>
and Gil goes on to argue that there is circularity in Marx's argument
on the primacy of wage labor.
In a word, I agree--IF the centrality of wage labor is all that
emerges from Marx's focus on explaining surplus from the exchange
of value equivalents. However, I argue that something quite different
emerges if you start from his exchange-value/use-value logic: a
complete alternative to the subjectivist theory of value of the
neoclassicals, which is not based upon a labor theory of value.
I'll hold off on elaborating this until I get a few responses on
whether my starting point--the exchange-value/use-value dialectic--
is accepted by OPE members as one of Marx's starting points.
I'd better also apologise in advance for some hassles in my email.
At home, I am "cut off" from my references because of problems getting
email to work remotely under Windows NT. As a result, my email comms
are under Windows, and my references are stored on an inaccessible NT
compressed drive. So occasionally I'll be forced to wait several days
until I can access my work site, where email functions under NT.
Cheers,
Steve