Re: [OPE-L] Michael Schauerte

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2007 - 06:53:01 EDT

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> ajit sinha wrote:
> >Thanks Mike!
> >
> >I think the fundamental problem with such reasoning
> is
> >the positing of exchange relation as =. There is no
> >compelling reason for understanding an exchange
> >relation as a relation of equality. What one can
> say
> >is that the VALUES of the two commodities exchanged
> >are equal. But this is a tautology and already
> >presupposes VALUES.
> >
> >Secondly, the move from exchange of equivalents to
> >exchange of equivalent ABSTRACT labor is always the
> >weakest link and relies only on assertions. The
> usual
> >rhetorical trick employed at this stage is "Marx
> shows
> >that..." or "Marx proves that ..." or "Marx argues
> >that ...". The reason is clear. The author, whoever
> >the author happens to be, finds it very difficult
> to
> >argue the case on the merit of it, so the
> invocation
> >of Marx is introduced to bridge this gap in
> reasoning.
> >Cheers, ajit sinha
> >--- Michael Schauerte <yk3mk3@MY.EMAIL.NE.JP>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> The alternative is to show that the metric space of
> commodities
> shares the features of a system governed by a scalar
> conservation law.
> This does not prove that the scalar being conserved
> is labour value, it only
> shows that hypothesising something called value is
> equivalent to
> hypothesising
> something called energy or charge in the case of
> other systems governed
> by conservation laws.
> Establishing that it is labour that is the scalar
> being conserved is an
> empirical question.
Let's accept the assumptions and suppose that what is
conserved is labor. Will it then necessarily prove
that exchange of commodities must imply exchange of
equal amount of labor? Cheers, ajit sinha

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT