[OPE-L:6275] Re: recent science and society and Fred M's interpretation

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 15:34:32 EST

Hi Rakesh!

1. Do you have a brief presentation of your "inverse transformation

2. "I am at a loss why the  TSS'ers do not recognize that in his 1941
dynamics book to which Mattick Sr wrote an introduction, Grossmann
demonstrated how at odds Marx was at equilibrium assumptions of bourgeois


3. "I noticed however that you did not mention that your interpretation
requires that Marx's mention of double divergence in Capital 3 and TSV be
excised in effect from the text."

I don't know Fred and Laibman's articles in S&S, but I've given an
interpretation of what you call the "double divergence" in my article in
IJPE. It doesn't require to "excise" texts. I don't believe, btw, that Fred
advises to make such a thing...


"ii. it accommodates your and alejandro's evidence that the cost 
prices are a given precondition and the inputs don't have to be 

"...though i agree with you and alejandro that the inputs themselves 
don't have to be transformed...)"

I don't think (I have never thought or written in private or public form)
that "inputs don't have to be transformed". Inputs are under the form of
"cost-*price*" and cost-price is a "transformed magnitude" (as its name
itself indicates), meaning that it corresponds to the social labor-time
represented by the money the capitalist advances at the moment the inputs
are consumed. As Marx makes it clear in the text omitted in Engels edition
of Ch. 9, Vol III, K is a common magnitude for both values (W) and
production prices (P).

So, I'd very happy to know where did you get the idea that I think that
"the inputs don't have to be transformed".



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST