[ show plain text ]
>On Tue, 30 May 2000, Michael Williams wrote:
>> I'm afraid that Gil's interpretation just does not fit this
>> passage. Far from saying that equivalent exchange is
>> *necessary* for an explanation of surplus value, Marx says
>> that the latter 'must be possible even though' there is
>> equivalent exchange. This is exactly what I earlier called
>> 'even-if logic'....
>I agree with Michael here. I suppose Gil's comeback is that the
>"even if" has no useful force: one might as well stipulate that
>an adequate explanation of profit has to hold "even if the moon
>were made of green cheese". But here of course I don't agree
>with Gil, in that I find exchange of commodities at prices
>corresponding to values to be a conceptually valid benchmark.
Ah, but therein lies the rub, Allin. On what *logical* grounds do you
"find exchange of commodities at prices corresponding to values to be a
conceptually valid benchmark." Are they the grounds Marx advances in Ch.
5? If so, what do you do with my arguments that these grounds are invalid?
If not, what alternative grounds do you advance?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT