Ian:
> If we take seriously Marxs idea that "value" is a "social
> relation of production" then the conservation laws do
> not have a clear foundation.
Alejandro:
Could you kindly explain this very obscure (for me)
statement?
Ian:
> If the question were an interpretation which saved everything in Marxs
> text as opposed to others which represented his views as mistaken in this
> that or the other way, we should go for the most generous interpretation.
> But that is not the case, so far as I can see. We have to choose between
> intepretations which save one or other of the positions Marx took.
Alejandro:
What is "saved" following Tugan-Baranowsky [1905]
particular (and, in my opinion, ERRONEOUS) interpretation
of Marx?
Ian:
> I dont think that the conservation of value is all that
> theoretically significant (what hangs on it?)
Alejandro:
Perhaps some articles written by Samuelson in the early 70s
could answer this question.
Ian:
> it is absurd to make a charge of inconsistency in
> relation to a manuscript.
Actually, as it has been shown in recent posts, there is no
"inconsistency" in the manuscript. The "inconsistency" only
arises if we follow the interpretation that Paul is
proposing, which is the same proposed by: Tugan,
Bortkiewicz... Steedman... Samuelson...
> Shaikh, for example, shows that you can take Marxs
> vol III calculations as the first step in an iteration.
Could you explain? Are you meaning that "at the end of
Shaikh's iterations" we would find the "consistency"? The
"thread" of your reasoning is not clear for me.
Paul's statements have been very clear. He wants to conserve
the traditional interpretation because he can use it in the
context of a model that can "predict" better than
others some empirical phenomena. He has a "pragmatic"
(understandable) methodological position. I can agree or
not, but the position is clear. I have not been able to
find the same clarity in the case of Ian.
Alejandro Ramos M.
28.11.96