[OPE-L:3680] Re: Rakesh's interpretation

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 16 2000 - 08:34:48 EDT

[ show plain text ]

"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 08/15/00:

>A quick comment and question for you to think about. In your latest
>posts, you do not seem to have answered my question of what exactly
>Volume 1 is about. I say it is mainly about the determination of dM,
>which means that the explanation has to be in terms of money, and the
>concepts employed in this explanation (constant capital, variable
>capital, and surplus-value) have to be defined in terms of money (which
>indeed they are).

>Do you agree or disagree?

    Fred, except for one brief note, you haven't answered my question in
regard to your interpretation, beginning with 3602.
    See also 3610:

'When Marx ASSUMES price-value equivalence in Volume 1 there is no mileage
to be gotten out of reproducing quotes like

' "the VALUE of the commodity IS x SHILLINGS."

'It seems to me you have to go to the transformation problem to
demonstrate whatever it is you are attempting. Otherwise, you can be
accused of being "on the surface of bourgeois society [in which] the wage
of the laborer appears as the price of labor, a certain quantity of money
that is paid for a certain quantity of labor" (first sentence of Part on
"Wages"). But this is not you. So, I'm out of the loop of knowing what
is going on.'

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EDT