[OPE-L:4615] Re: Re: Re: Re: reply to Fred (1)

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2000 - 13:30:21 EST

what you are saying seems to me profoundly important, so let me think about it.
Best, R

>I appear to be completely failing to communicate my point here!
>Still this is a devilishly complex business so maybe it is not
>surprising. My objection is to the term 'disallow' above. To 'disallow'
>something is to rule it out by stipulation. The question this raises is
>how do we decide what to disallow? My point is that Marx is
>following the objective 'contours' of the object in making his
>assumptions. Very simply this means he is making assumptions
>that can be relaxed later in the analysis, without invalidating the
>prior analysis. This is only possible because the object itself is
>structured across levels of abstraction. 'Abstraction' thereby has an
>ontological as well as epistemological aspect. [But note that the
>object actually exists as a concrete whole, a synthesis of many
>determinations, from the most abstract to the concrete. So it is
>vital that Marx develops from the abstract to the concrete].
>You use the term 'stipulation' etc. as if Marx is imposing these. But
>he is simply following the nature of the object; an object which is a
>'structured totality'. Don't you agree?
>A second point I have been making is this: Marx makes absolutely
>clear in chs 4-6 that the assumption of equivalent exchange is not
>needed to establish that lab / lab power is the sole source of SV.
>This is absolutely crucial. Marx could not have been any clearer
>about this. I hope you agree. (yes, Marx goes on to assume
>equivalent exchange - but only after making clear that this is
>innocuous as regards the argument on the source of SV)
>Many thanks,

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