From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 19:06:31 EST
Hi Paul > Surely not. It attacks marx not at the foundation - in volume 1 but > in volume 3, and unfinished draft that he considered not ready > for publication. Fair point. > The argument in volume 1 does not rest on the assumption of > equal rates of profit for different capitals. The neo-ricardians > attack by way of an auxilliary hypothesis - Gould's term a 'spandrel'. Not quite fair because Marx accepted the hypothesis of uniform profit. The neo-Ricardian critique is an "immanent" critique of Marx's Vol. 3. F&M, and your good self, reject a premiss of the TP -- that is realised uniform profit rates. No doubt uniform profit is unrealistic and prices of production are "ideal" prices. The question remains, however, why Marx's value theory doesn't appear to function as he hoped/intended in this ideal case (at least according to the N-R critique). Best, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 09 2006 - 00:00:01 EST