[OPE-L:1055] Re: Re-Post of Andrew's [954] on the "transfor

Gilbert Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:06:21 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Just a quick aside. Andrew writes:
> Second, it made sense to do so in that specific context,
> because he was just trying to show that profit doesn't come from selling
> continually above the average price (or the value). Note that this is
> extremely similar to the end of the now-much-debated Ch. 5 of Vol.
> I.

Similar, but not logically equivalent. Marx insists on a much
stronger condition at the end of Ch. 5, to the effect that any case
of exploitation is isomorphic to a case in which price-value
equivalence (as well as "something ...in the background which is not
visible in the circulation itself") holds. This does not follow from
the arguments given in the chapter, which for example do not refute
the possibility that exploitation might require this "something" in
conjunction with *non*-equivalence of prices and values.
This conclusion is not only invalid but has had pernicious effects, as I've
argued earlier.

In solidarity, Gil