Re: [OPE] replacement cost and historical cost (again)

From: Ian Wright <wrighti@acm.org>
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 13:00:09 EDT

Paul,

> I think one can say that the simple conception B allows us to understand/ is
> a step towards understanding/ that conception A is the dynamic reality, ie
> how the law of value is active day to day. It is a reflection of Marx's
> method of 'reconstruction' of an understanding of reality, it is not a
> question of using both in the sense that both are concretely true, but that
> that your B precedes A logically so that the law of value is shown to work
> itself out, ie that the law of value can be proved to exert an historically
> determinate role as long as current class relations continue as they are.

I think you are onto something here, in the sense that perhaps Marx
also struggled with the precise meaning of labor-values, although
perhaps you would favor looking for a consistent interpretation of
this aspect of his theory. I do not know. But instantaneous
replacement costs is the meaning I think Marx generally worked with,
although when it came to thinking about how to calculate or "add up"
all the labor costs he naturally resorted to tracing costs "backward
in time", and therefore suggested historical determination ...

-Ian.
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Sep 3 13:05:09 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT