[OPE-L:4461] Re: Re: Re: What is Volume 1 about?

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 08:31:50 EST

On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote:
> Fred, My critique of your interpretation should have sent you to square one. So
> why not work on that, rather than waste time on such non-issues? 

But, Ajit, I have answered every one of your criticisms, including the
last one we discussed - your empiricist criticism that m must be
observable in order to be taken as given, which I answered in (3970) and
to which you have not yet responded. (Gil seems to agree with me on this
point that a variable need not be observable in order to be taken as
given.)  The same thing is true of all your other criticisms: they have
been answered.  If you wish to name other criticisms, I will be happy to
give you the post numbers in which they were answered and to which you
have not responded.  

> There is no
> fundamental difference between Bortkiewcz and Dickerson's positions. 

Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether the variables determined in
Volume 1 are labor-time quantities or money quantities?  But what is
Marx's theory in Volume 1 about?  What are the main questions
addressed?  Isn't the analytical framework of Marx's theory the
circulation of capital (M - C ... P ... C' - M') and isn't this all about
money and prices?

> And both of
> them have understood the problem well. Cheers, ajit sinha

I would say they understood the problem from the perspective of linear
production theory, but they did not understand the LACK of a problem from
the point of view of Marx's theory of the circulation of capital.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EST