Date: Fri Dec 01 2006 - 15:48:17 EST
Quoting ajit sinha <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM>: > allow you to move another step. Now, the proposition > Marx is making is not that empirically profits and > surplus labor are observed to go together but rather > the *cause* of profit lies in surplus labor. This > proposition is simply asserted but never proved by > Marx. Marx proves it subject to the proposition that exchange value is proportionate to labour content. This proposition is taken over from classical political economy, and as such did not have to be proven against then existing opponents. To demand that in the 1860's he addressed alternative approaches to value that came into being later is surely anachronistic. This does leave the interesting scientific questions 1. Was classical political economy right in assuming that actual exchange values were closely proportional to labour content. 2. If this is the case, why is it the case. We now know that 1 is true, which leaves question 2. I think an adequate theory was provided by Farjoun and Machover. They use statistical mechanics to give a theoretical explanation for the regularities that classical political economy had observed and taken as givens. So we do now have a 'theory of horses', even if the classicals worked largely on the basis of observed regularities. As I understand it, Ian has an additional theory of his own as to why the law of value holds, one whose logical consitency he has subjected to the test of exhaustive simulation, so you are being a bit harsh when you say he has no theory. See: Wright, I. (2006) The emergence of the law of value in a dynamic simple commodity economy. To appear in Review of Political Economy. but he has it on his web page at the link http://18.104.22.168/%7Ewright/sce.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST