[OPE-L:7166] [OPE-L:674] Re: Re: I'm my own brother!

Ajit Sinha (sinha@cdedse.ernet.in)
15 Mar 99 16:52:00 IST (+0530)

> In my view the key move is when with the capital form we reach a
> relation
> in whcih value is its own end.
> Chris Arthur
As some people may remember, the debate on chapter one had taken
place a few months ago as well. Then I had participated in it too.
On the question of exchange relation as equality relation I
sympathise with Gil and Steve's position. But for sometimes I have
been thinking what is at stake here? First of all, given that the
first chapter is dealing with a simple commodity producing economy
and not a capitalist economy it is well known that, given the usual
assumption of SCP economy, the exchange ratio of commodities should
be equal to their value ratios. So LTV is not denied in this
context as such. I think Marx's reason for arguing that equal
values exchange was simply to establish that exploitation in
capitalism was not of the nature of unequal exchange, i.e. buying
cheap and selling dear. In other words, he set up the hard test for
himself by trying to establish exploitation on the basis of "equal
exchange". To what extent the test suceeded has to be established
by investigating the nature of capital-labour power exchange. On
this question I think the whole problematic of value in the context
of SCP economy begins to break as I have argued in my paper
published in *Research in Political Economy* vol. 15, 1996. I think
we need to move away from the ideas of labour as the *cause* of
value to the idea of labour as the *measure* of value--a point I
have suggested in my paper. In this context, I think we can use
Amertya Sen's suggestion that LTV could be defended from the
discriptive point of view rather than predictive or evaluative
point of view. Cheers, ajit sinha
Dr. Ajit Sinha
Visiting Fellow
Centre for Development Economics
Delhi School of Economics
University of Delhi, Delhi 110007