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

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Fri Mar 23 2007 - 12:41:48 EDT

Rakesh, Fred

I agree that Pilling's book is in general exceptional.

> Marxists are also blamed for the real contradictions of capitalist production.

I also agree that Marx's proposed solution of the classical
contradiction between the labour theory of value and capitalist
profits, that prices are transformed labour-values, is unique in the
sense that it aims both to resolve the contradiction and additionally
explain the necessity for its existence in the mind of pro-capitalist
theorists. Unfortunately, in the special case of equilibrium, Marx's
critics scored a point. The transformation problem derails this train
of thought. Putting it back on track requires, I think, that the
special case be addressed, not avoided. Fred this is why I currently
view your macro-monetary interpretation, if restricted to sequential
determination, as tangential to this goal. But it is ok to have
different theoretical goals, when understood to be part of a broader

Fred, would I be right in thinking that you will give a sequential
determination reply to Ajit's critique that your reasoning is

Best wishes,

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