[OPE-L:724] Re: LTV an assumption?

Gilbert Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Wed, 13 Dec 1995 13:18:31 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Paul C. writes:

> I think that Steve is right to say that Marx's argument
> does not prove that members of an equivalence class must
> share a common element.
> However, leaving Marx's argument aside, one can say that
> the nature of the metric space defined by the equivalance
> class of commodities is such as to be characteristic of
> a system governed by a scalar conservation law, which is
> in effect what Marx goes on to assert about labour content.

Perhaps, but if I understand Paul's reference to "scalar conservation
law", this is not enough to support Marx's oft-repeated claim that
individual prices are regulated by corresponding values, nor the
Ch. 5 claim that the explanation of surplus value must be based on
price-value equivalence.

Gil Skillman