[ show plain text ]
I would just like to pose an apparently simple question into the complex and
interesting debate between Fred and Gil. Gil writes:
>there is no useful sense in which
> price-value equivalence constitutes a necessary, or even economically
> relevant, starting point for the analysis of capitalist exploitation.
Is price-value equivalence not a relevant starting point for a (sensibly
useful) 'even if' argument: 'Even if price-value equivalence holds' claims
Marx, 'I can derive the conditions of existence for exploitation of labour'.
And then does it.
Or am I missing something?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT