Re: [OPE-L] questions on the interpretation of labour values

From: Pen-L Fred Moseley (fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 22 2007 - 22:48:26 EDT

Quoting Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM>:

> In any event, in reply to the method of taking the magnitudes in
> _Capital_ as  'given' as in Fred's perspective, I think the *most
> interesting*  (post-_Capital_) questions  arise later in the analysis
> when we allow what has been *assumed* to be 'given' to change.
> So, Riccardo and you are raising interesting (but different) points,
> but they are points which go beyond what Marx was trying to do with
> the transformation, imo.

I argue that the quantities of money capital that are taken as given in
the beginning do not change (in magnitude) as the theory moves to lower
levels of abstraction, but rather these given (and unchanging)
magnitudes are more fully explained, in stages.

I think that this is the most important advance in Diegos recent work
 developing Marxs theory beyond Capital to lower levels of
abstraction, at which the initial given (and unchanging) magnitudes of
C and V are explained more fully.


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT