Fred B. Moseley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 24 Dec 1999 00:30:51 -0500 (EST)
A quick addendum to Chris' interesting comments in (1956) about Marx's
late clarity on the distinction between value and exchange-value.
Enrique Dussel, who has read through all of Marx's economic manuscripts,
including Marx's original manuscripts in his horrible handwriting, also
emphasizes this same point (in the third book of his trilogy on Marx's
economic manuscripts, El ultimo Marx y la liberacion Latinoamericana,
Chris is surely right that Marx's long critical confrontation with Bailey,
in the middle part of the 1861-63 manuscript (the part we know as Theories
of Surplus-value) was a major factor in clarifying this distinction for
Chris, about "absolute value": Marx's reference to "absolute value" in
the first edition must be a reference to Bailey. Are you suggesting that
there is something significant about the deletion of "absolute value" in
the second edition?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Dec 24 1999 - 07:00:03 EST