In other words, he used his adversaries' own assumptions and logic to destroy their arguments and their ideology. Very clever and refreshing, but fundamentally a philological exercise.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> My eyes are getting steadily worse & I more and more depend on ZoomText
> reading aloud to me. That makes it extremely difficult to determine who is
> saying what!
>
> A question: Who if anyone on this list believes that value determines
> prices?
>
> To believe that, it seems to me, is to believe that "Marx" is simply the
> German spelling of "Ricardo."
>
> I'm not sure, in any case, that lbo-talk (or perhaps any e-list) is a
> context in which to debate conflicting interpretations of Marx. And note,
> interpreting Marx (or any text by anyone) belongs to philology, not
> economics.
>
> Carrol
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Peter Fay
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 10:41 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Definition of nation (was as if on cue)
>
> I see in the referenced notes from last year lots of speculation on what
> Marx was probably thinking, lots of "more or less", "implicitly", "in
> effect", "edges toward", etc. There is a long and well-tread path of those
> trying to insert words and ideas into Marx's writings that are simply not
> there in order to further their own ends. In no way do I see Marx anywhere
> saying/implying/thinking about/almost saying that price plays any role
> whatsoever in determining value. This contradicts everything he ever
> wrote,
> including Capital and Theories of Surplus Value. In fact he says exactly
> the
> opposite, many times.
>
> The one thing I've always liked about Marx is that he says exactly what he
> means and he means exactly what he says, and does not leave things implied,
> or almost-meant. (By the way, I've found the quotes from Penguin Publishers
> translation of Capital seems quite imprecise and at times inaccurate - try
> using the International Publishers translation - much cleaner.)
>
> I see your main argument, as below, but see nothing to validate it. In
> fact
> to validate that argument, one must jettison the entire first volume of
> capital wherein he explains Value.
>
> [MB]:"It becomes clear that supply and demand - as modern economics
> conceives them - actually do play a role in establishing long-run values
> and
> prices-of-production, not merely the fluctuations around them."
>
> "Marx's problem with supply and demand analysis _as he knew it_ was that it
> didn't explain what determined supply and demand at any given price. In
> modern neoclassical terms, the answer is supply and demand _schedules_
> which
> relate demand and supply to the range of possible prices.
>
> "Marx more-or-less develops the idea of supply and demand schedules in the
> chapters on competition in Volume 3. It follows naturally from his emphasis
> that value depends on 'socially necessary' labour time"
>
> Again, I don't see how one trying to predict the price fluctuations of
> commodities in the future marketplace by using supply/demand theory
> (successfully or not) would provide any ammunition to invalidate the labor
> theory of value. This is a really old and worn argument, I'm sure everyone
> here knows, though apparently not settled in some minds.
>
> -PF
>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:15 PM, Mike Beggs <mikejbeggs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Peter Fay <peterrfay at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Huh?
> > > The labor theory of value dubious? Did we just flush down the loo 250
> > years
> > > of Smith, Ricardo and Marx?
> > >
> > > So the labor theory of value would be replaced by... what? Marginal
> > > utility, which has always seemed to me closer to a divining rod than a
> > > theory? Or would we just abandon any attempt to explain value, as in
> > modern
> > > economics? Is this generally agreed here, that the labor theory of
> value
> > is
> > > somehow passé?
> >
> > Hey Peter,
> >
> > This was my take when this came up last year - that Marx actually
> > pointed the way out of the labour theory of value... and you can look
> > around the thread in the archives:
> >
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2010/2010-July/009802.html
> >
> > Mike Beggs
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Fay
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>