[OPE-L:4612] Re: Re: reply to Fred (1)

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 08:06:53 EST

Pleased to (virtually) meet you Gil!

I am very pleased that you have taken the trouble to read my post. 
Let me confess that I have not read your published work, and only 
know of your views through having been on this list for a little over a 
year. When last this discussion came up I was still wallowing in 
more abstract issues of philosophy, method and the first 3 
chapters of CAPITAL so could not follow your argument and the 
ensuing debate. I am now embarked upon the final chapter of my 
PhD which focusses upon chs 4-6. I have been struck by the lack 
of any consensus in the literature on just what Marx is talking 
about here! I am particularly concerned that Marx can easily be 
interpretated as simply *assuming* surplus labour is the sole 
source of surplus value, or purely *defining* this to be the case (in 
'accounting' fashion) without showing the mechanism by which 
labour power / labour and not, say, machines give rise to M' on a 
systematic long term basis, through exchange. Imo Marx 
successfully does the latter - anything less is not good enough.

I would be very grateful if you (and any one else) could 
reccommend any one or two key articles on this. Steve Keen 
referred to the 'standard' intepretation. I have no idea what this is!

I will certainly get back to the issues you raised in your post but, 
as usual on OPEL, I tend to find that a proper article rather than 
email exchange is necessary to express my own view properly (I 
still owe replies to Mike W. and Rakesh on other topics...I hope 
my chapter will cover all these issues)

So let me get back to you on the topic, once my chapter is 

Many thanks,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST