> [...]
What a great post.
For those who might otherwise not make it to the end, the upshot of Mike's post is the last graf:
> In other words, the labour theory of value was thus a step towards
> equilibrium theory and a real advance over vulgar supply-and-demand
> theory. But conceptualising demand and supply as _schedules_ opened
> the way to superseding vulgar labour-value theory in turn. When
> Marxists stick to the letter of Capital and quote Marx's dismissals of
> supply and demand as determining nothing, and think this holds against
> neoclassical conceptions of supply and demand, they are falling into
> anachronism. Even if the neoclassical vision is problematic, the fact
> remains that it's not what Marx was dismissing, and they therefore
> miss the opportunity to engage productively.
SA