[OPE-L:114] Re: Value and exploitation [was "the law of value"]

Gilbert Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Fri, 22 Sep 1995 15:49:53 -0700

[ show plain text ]

Jerry writes:

> Gil seems to think that the purpose of Marx's understanding of value was
> to explain the origins of surplus value. Gil goes on to suggest that
> surplus value can be explained without reference to the "law of value."
> Like Gil, I don't want to initiate a long debate on this subject now.
> However, I do *not* think that Marx understood that the purpose of
> analysing the two-fold nature of the commodity (including use-value,
> value, and the value-form) was only to explain the origins of surplus
> value.

I don't think so either. Jerry is imputing to me a position I didn't
take. All I said initially was that we have been discussing the law of value
as if it were an established argument, which it isn't. It's Paul Z.
who initially emphasized the connection to the theory of
exploitation, not me. So if Jerry has an issue here, it's with Paul,
not me.

Gil Skillman