[OPE-L:3952] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Transformation Problem

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 04 2000 - 16:05:02 EDT

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU) wrote:

> In 3947 Paul C wrote:
> >Note that the definition of value in vol 1 is done in abstraction from
> >changes in technology over time.
> False. From the beginning, Marx emphasizes that an increase in the 
> amount of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous fall in 
> the magnitude of value...

I guess you read Paul's first sentence but didn't pause to read
the next.  Of course Marx talks about the effects of changes in
labour productivity on values.  What he doesn't do is explore
the implications of continuous technical change for the very
definition of value (as the labour-time socially necessary for a
commodity's production).  That definition is unproblematic
(unambiguous) if one is doing comparative statics -- figuring
the value of a commodity "before" and "after" a discrete change
in technology.  It needs more work in a context of continuous

In the post to which Paul was replying you mention that I hadn't
responded to an earlier one of yours.  True, but -- I hope this
is not regarded as a "flame" -- you have a certain tendency to
shoot from the hip without apparently investing much effort in
understanding the opposed point of view, which can make extended
debate a bit wearisome.

Allin Cottrell.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST