[OPE-L:6745] [OPE-L:218] Re: Re: Exchange of equivalents

Ajit Sinha (ecas@cc.newcastle.edu.au)
Mon, 26 Oct 1998 18:12:07 +1100

>>> At 16:00 23/10/98 -0400, Fred Mosely wrote:
>>> >Ajit,
>>> >
>>> >Thanks for your message. Yes, you are right. I was sloppy here.
>>> >I think Brendan has formulated the argument correctly - that exchange
>>> >is reflexive, symmetircal, and transitive which implies the exchange of
>>> >equivalent values.
>>> ____________
>>> But waht are these "values" which are equivalent in exchange? Are they
>>> of commodities? weight? color? hardness? softness? what? I don't think the
>>> idea of "equivalence" goes any further than the claim that x amount of
>>> money is equal to x amount of money. Cheers, ajit sinha
>>Hi Ajit,
>>Thanks for your reply. I agree that the conclusion that exchange
>>is the exchange of equivalents does not establish the labor theory of
>>value. But it is an important first step in the argument, and a step that
>>has been disputed ever since Bohm Bawerk. If we could reach a consensus
>>that at least this first step in the argument is logicall correct, this
>>would be an advance.
>Hi Fred,
>They are exchange of equivalents in terms of what? Nothing can be
vacuously equivalent to something else. In a market echange situation all
one can say is that A is equivalent to B in terms of money. But this does
not take us too far. And Bohm Bawerk probably would not have objected to
this either. His objection was to Marx's particular deduction from exchange
relation. Cheers, ajit sinha
>>I think the second step in the argument - that equality implies
>>commensurability - follows pretty easily.
>>The final step in the argument is the most difficult - that the common
>>property of commodities in terms of which their equality in exchange is
>>determined is abstract labor. But with these initial advances, attention
>>could then be focused squarely on this final step.
>>Thanks again,