tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8098775686867664030..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Marx and Engels’ Attempt to Salvage the Law of Value in Volume 1 of CapitalLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32411416583813417182016-12-10T23:08:17.160-08:002016-12-10T23:08:17.160-08:00Just because LK the sophist is unable to comprehen...Just because LK the sophist is unable to comprehend Hedlund's argument doesn't make his argument incorrect. It's fairly obvious to anyone who's read Capital (which of course, LK refuses to do and would rather quote mine Marx using critiques crafted by better people), that Marx is structuring volume 1 to illustrate the basic laws of commodity production and to then extrapolate from there. He mentions over and over again in the book that "we are assuming commodities trade at their value". <br /><br />LK of course, refuses to read what he critiques and this leads me to believe his portrayal of Austrian economics is probably built on strawmen as well. What a shame LK, what a shame. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01733326304927122323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69123512619010241692015-12-11T11:24:39.093-08:002015-12-11T11:24:39.093-08:00Hedlund: "Weren't you the one just saying...<br /><br />Hedlund: "Weren't you the one just saying the other day that the absence of an explicit statement in volume <br />I means we're free to assume that Marx thought the law of value had no empirical expression in history? "<br />LK: Not what I said.<br />Hedlund supplied a link to a comment from LK. This seems the only possibly relevant passage from that link: LK:<br />"Bingo. Not a shred of clear and explicit evidence that he intended the law of value in vol. 1 <br />to be restricted to an earlier period."<br /><br />If this is Hedlund's rebuttal it's hopeless. <br />LK's position is that Marx intended no restriction on the applicability of his purported law, <br />not that it was restricted to just an earlier period. <br />Demanding evidence for some imagined revision of what Marx plainly stated is not remotely the claim that absent an <br />explicit statement we can apply Marx's general statement in a direct place and time. The general statement applies, absent a limitation. <br /><br />Imagine I say "all life evolved". You claim "Ken B only meant all non-human life."<br />LK could rightly demand you prove the caveat, and the lack of an explicit statement from me would undermine your claim.<br />It would then be weird to say "LK, didn't you just argue that absent an explicit statement we can't claim Ken B <br />meant his statement to apply to any particular animal."<br />Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90387317874951502862015-12-04T12:45:17.349-08:002015-12-04T12:45:17.349-08:00I think any honest observer can see you haven'...I think any honest observer can see you haven't actually rebutted my argument.<br /><br />(1) As the evidence I presented shows, this is a matter of presentation and not content. Perhaps you missed it, but I definitely said as much.<br /><br />(2) Proposition 1 is virtually a direct quote out of Footnote 24, and it is merely one of the premises I use for my proof, not the proof in and of itself. Your link does not dispute it as I have used it, and framing it as some slip-up is not consistent with the evidence I've shared, since it's clear his thinking on this was consistent with the Vol 3 story at least as far back as 1862.<br /><br />(3) It most certainly does prove my point, which is that Marx's views in the 1860's were in accord with Engels' portrayal of them in volume 3. Its absence from volume 1 is consistent with the stated aim of the book. <br /><br />In order to include it explicitly, he'd need to also include a discussion about the general rate of profit and prices of production, both of which were also absent from volume 1. By your reading, does this mean he did not have a place in his theory for a general rate of profit or prices of production in the 1860's? Keynes never uses the phrase "I am not a Nazi" in the General Theory; what should we conclude from this?<br /><br />(4) Have you got an argument, or is this just a "because LK says so" thing?<br /><br />(5) How so? Marx's position was that the law of value *is* valid for the 19th century, and indeed all centuries in which commodity exchange exists, because it is an emergent law <i>of commodity exchange itself</i>. It doesn't go away under capitalism; it moves from a surface-level phenomenon to an underlying one. You must pay attention to where Marx uses words like "apparent," "form of appearance," etc., because this meant to contrast with the real processes underlying. It's one of the crucial planks of scientific realism to which both he and most modern Post Keynesians subscribe.<br /><br />(6) I give you deduction from demonstrable premises, you reply with "strongly suggests." No, no one was "scrambling to solve the transformation problem after vol. 1" because the figures in question were not published in vol 1. It's clear you're just making things up as you go, at this point.<br /><br />(7) This is completely irrelevant. I never said the man is immune to cognitive dissonance or anything else of the sort; merely that his theory does not change between volumes 1 and 3. I really don't care beyond that; attribute whatever traits to him you please.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31200070955701760322015-12-04T09:33:22.313-08:002015-12-04T09:33:22.313-08:00(1) "That phrasing is not in there, to my kno...(1) <i>"That phrasing is not in there, to my knowledge."</i><br /><br />Bingo. Not a shred of clear and explicit evidence that he intended the law of value in vol. 1 to be restricted to an earlier period. <br /><br />(2) Footnote 24 in chapter 5 does not prove your point and merely proves mine:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/08/two-instances-where-marxs-theory-of.html<br /><br />(3) a citation from his private correspondence with Engels does not prove your point at all, for you need clear citation in vol. 1 and we know well that he was already mulling over this inconsistent and contradictory view of price determination in his draft of vol. 3. The issue is whether he explicitly stated the later restriction of the law of value in vol. 1 to the period before the 15th century.<br /><br />(4) the quote on variable capital once again does not prove your point. <br /><br />(5) your deduction that this is what Marx believed is refuted by the many other explicit statements throughout vol. 1 implying that the law of value is valid for the 19th century.<br /><br />(6) moreover, the fact that people were scrambling to solve the transformation problem after vol. 1 proves that he never explicitly made his view clear. The fact that he never wanted vols. 2 and 3 published in his lifetime also strongly suggests he realised that vol. 1 would be contradicted by his prices of production theory already sketched in the draft of vol. 3.<br /><br />(7) you also show a great deal of naiveté in thinking that Marx could never be guilty of cognitive dissonance, of holding at different times views on price determination incompatible with one another.<br /><br />In short, you have not laid the matter to rest but demonstrated that my view is better.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22023921697571993432015-12-04T08:57:03.135-08:002015-12-04T08:57:03.135-08:00[Note: My response appears where the same question...[Note: My response appears where the same question was asked above.]Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-14819601261740068712015-12-04T08:56:03.957-08:002015-12-04T08:56:03.957-08:00So you're asking for a Vol 1 quote that says, ...So you're asking for a Vol 1 quote that says, explicitly, "in early commodity exchange, the law of value was apparent at the surface level, but under modern capitalism it is not"?<br /><br />That phrasing is not in there, to my knowledge. Nevertheless, I can demonstrate that, as of the publication of Vol 1, he holds the same theory and historical perspective that appears in the published third volume:<br /><br /><b>Proposition 1: Prices of production are not the same thing as values.</b> [Supporting evidence: "average prices do not directly coincide with the values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe." (vol. 1, footnote 24, ch 5)]<br /><br /><b>Proposition 2: Prices of production and values differ according to their divergence from the average organic composition of capital.</b> [Supporting evidence: Omitting the published Vol 3, we still have it in from around 1864-1865, the 1863 manuscripts for Theories of Surplus Value, and even older letters. Example: "competition reduces commodities not to their value, but to the cost price [defined here as he later defines price of production], which, depending on the organic composition of the respective capitals, is either above, below or = to their values" (2 August 1862 letter to Engels).]<br /><br /><b>Proposition 3: Pre-capitalist commodity exchange featured a high ratio of variable capital to constant capital, and very little variation in the organic composition of capital.</b> [Supporting evidence: "The class of wage labourers, which arose in the latter half of the 14th century, formed then and in the following century only a very small part of the population. ... The subordination of labour to capital was only formal – i.e., the mode of production itself had as yet no specific capitalistic character. Variable capital preponderated greatly over constant. The demand for wage labour grew, therefore, rapidly with every accumulation of capital, whilst the supply of wage labour followed but slowly." (vol 1, chapter 28)]<br /><br />From these three premises, we can deduce exactly what I've claimed. Because early commodity exchange had no specific capitalistic character, the growth of constant capital via commodified means of production was severely restricted. OCC varied little as a consequence, which means prices of production were more directly in line with values. Therefore, the law of value was apparent as a surface-level regulator of price. As capitalism develops, differing capital intensities mean increasing OCC variance, and therefore a greater distance between prices of production and values. QED, using sources from the 1860's, without reference to anything Engels touched.<br /><br />So, the absence of the requested phrase is a matter of presentation, rather than content. I will argue the presentation is also warranted, as it would be outside the stated scope of vol 1. As he says in the preface to the first edition, the aim of vol 1 is to provide a general theory -- "not a question of the higher or lower degree of development of the social antagonisms that result from the natural laws of capitalist production," but "a question of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with iron necessity towards inevitable results."<br /><br />He continues: "Here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class relations and class-interests."<br /><br />In contrast, Vol 2 deals with "the process of the circulation of capital" while Vol 3 "the varied forms assumed by capital in the course of its development." So from the get-go, it makes sense that the statement you're looking for should be in Vol 3 instead of 1.<br /><br />You are of course free to argue that this is was a poor decision on aesthetic grounds. I won't push back on that; de gustibus non est disputandum.<br /><br />I hope we can finally lay this matter to rest.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6741514501471292702015-12-03T08:31:38.087-08:002015-12-03T08:31:38.087-08:00(1) So you agree with my statements above, and now...(1) So you agree with my statements above, and now <br /><br />(2) you need to explain what evidence there is in vol. 1 that Marx explicitly held this view too. <br /><br />What is your evidence that Marx in his statements in vol. 1 argued that in commodity exchange until the 15th century commodities "exchanged approximately according to their value" but -- as Engels later argued -- "[w]e know that this direct realisation of value in exchange ceased and that now it no longer happens.”<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54720513786164921092015-12-03T08:28:21.432-08:002015-12-03T08:28:21.432-08:00If by "true labor values" you mean "...If by "true labor values" you mean "values" and not something else, then yep. <br /><br />Incidentally, are you going to answer the very simple yes/no question I asked? I know those are your favorite, so I figured you'd jump at the chance.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40135938748062861952015-12-03T07:45:36.564-08:002015-12-03T07:45:36.564-08:00(1) You're the one continuing to use laughable...(1) You're the one continuing to use laughable fallacies of equivocation here. But you seem to have given the dishonest game away below in the latest comments.<br /><br />(2) More idiot evasion and dishonesty.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-55048475439389242652015-12-03T07:42:50.238-08:002015-12-03T07:42:50.238-08:00As I just said below:
So you agree that in commod...As I just said below:<br /><br />So you agree that in commodity exchange until the 15th century commodities "exchanged approximately according to their value" but -- as Engels says -- "[w]e know that this direct realisation of value in exchange ceased and that now it no longer happens.”<br /><br />That is, so you agree that modern capitalism no longer has a state of affairs where commodities tend to exchange at true labour values and that labour values are not anchors for the price system?<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12622692198043749542015-12-03T07:41:12.515-08:002015-12-03T07:41:12.515-08:00"The law of value was empirical in the 15th c...<i>"The law of value was empirical in the 15th century, and furthermore that it continues to describe the real world even if its actualization is no longer directly visible as it once was. Under modern capitalism, further analysis is required to glean movements of value from movements of prices."</i><br /><br />So you agree that in commodity exchange until the 15th century commodities "exchanged approximately according to their value" but -- as Engels says -- "[w]e know that this direct realisation of value in exchange ceased and that now it no longer happens.”<br /><br />That is, so you agree that modern capitalism no longer has a state of affairs where commodities tend to exchange at true labour values and that labour values are not anchors for the price system?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-38269605767290385422015-12-03T07:12:51.469-08:002015-12-03T07:12:51.469-08:00This "yes or no" trick-question nonsense...This "yes or no" trick-question nonsense is without question your most unpleasant tic, even beyond your neverending insults and defamatory accusations.<br /><br />I agree with Engels in his supplement. <br /><br />I disagree with aspects of your reading of said supplement.<br /><br />The law of value was empirical in the 15th century, and furthermore that it continues to describe the real world even if its actualization is no longer directly visible as it once was. Under modern capitalism, further analysis is required to glean movements of value from movements of prices.<br /><br />Clear yet?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2929060142834233422015-12-03T07:08:11.027-08:002015-12-03T07:08:11.027-08:00Again, you're misunderstanding. Please hold y...Again, you're misunderstanding. Please hold your breathless accusations of dishonesty until you understand what is under discussion.<br /><br />The passage you bolded says much the same as the one I bolded: that the movements of value are no longer directly measurable as surface phenomena -- specifically because value and price diverge. That's literally it.<br /><br />Please be more careful going forward.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-46248129141236995522015-12-03T07:04:51.993-08:002015-12-03T07:04:51.993-08:00In other words, you are unable to even answer the ...<i>In other words, you are unable to even answer the question without violating the law of non-contradiction. </i><br /><br />No, that implies that I'm trying to claim both P and -P for the same parameter P, when in fact the sense in which it is "yes" assumes one parameter, and the sense in which it is "no" assumes another. In other words, I'm violating non-contradiction if and only if you're committing the fallacy of equivocation by eliding the differences between the two possible readings of your question.<br /><br />This is why I insist on clarity of terms; because if we equivocate, we leave open the door to trap questions like yours. If I had simply said "yes" without qualification, you could have said "aha, but then the law of value does not apply generally, contrary to M&E"; if I had simply said "no," you could say "aha, but empirically it is not the case that prices gravitate towards values under modern capitalism!" So, I was absolutely clear about both possible readings, and now you've stuck your foot in your mouth in your haste to find some other "gotcha."<br /><br />I'm pretty sure this is not what Aristotle would have wanted.<br /><br /><i>(2) also, I notice you totally ignore the second question: If "yes", then what is your evidence that Marx also held this view when he published vol. 1? Where is this evidence?</i><br /><br />I invite you to read the first word of my answer to (1). If the answer is not "yes," then I don't have to answer (2). And the answer can only be "yes" in a way heavily qualified to address your mistaken notion about the ontological status of the law. I say purge the mistake rather than build upon it.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-40574699782398205272015-12-03T06:59:50.506-08:002015-12-03T06:59:50.506-08:00">lol... Because nowhere does Marx say tha...<i>">lol... Because nowhere does Marx say that it is a <br />>totally unreal assumption never meant to apply to the <br />>real world.<br /><br />Nor do I, contrary to your assertion. You're "</i><br /><br />Wait, so now you agree that the theory of value in vol. 1 was understood as an empirical theory describing the real world before the 15th century by Engels in his "Supplement to Capital, Volume III"? Yes or no?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42485982757543774062015-12-03T06:57:24.074-08:002015-12-03T06:57:24.074-08:00">False. Yes, it does. And Engels says so....<i>">False. Yes, it does. And Engels says so. See the <br />>quote above.<br /><br />No, he definitely doesn't. </i><br /><br />Once again, false. Your dishonesty is breathtaking. <br /><br />See Engels:<br /><br /><i>“When commodity exchange began, when products gradually turned into commodities, they were exchanged approximately according to their value. It was the amount of labour expended on two objects which provided the only standard for their quantitative comparison. Thus value had a direct and real existence at that time. <b>We know that this direct realisation of value in exchange ceased and that now it no longer happens</b>.”</i><br />Letter, Engels to W. Sombart, from London, March 11, 1895<br /> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/letters/95_03_11.htm<br /><br />Your dishonesty is contemptible beyond words. Your views have been refuted and hang out to dry. No doubt this is why your comments on this blog have rapidly descended into comical incoherence.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5360778310630208582015-12-03T06:51:11.853-08:002015-12-03T06:51:11.853-08:00(1) "No, but it depends on your meaning. If I...(1) <i>"No, but it depends on your meaning. If I were to answer "yes," I'd only be correct if we mean that the real functioning ...</i><br /><br />In other words, you are unable to even answer the question without violating the law of non-contradiction. <br /><br />Your answer is incoherent.<br /><br />(2) also, I notice you totally ignore the second question: If "yes", then what is your evidence that Marx also held this view when he published vol. 1? Where is this evidence?<br /><br />You have said "yes" (admittedly, in your incoherence) so you should be able to say where the evidence is that Marx in vol.1 clearly restricted the law of value there to the pre-modern world of commodity exchange.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27081251911643409282015-12-03T06:17:40.813-08:002015-12-03T06:17:40.813-08:00It's rather annoying to split up the discussio...It's rather annoying to split up the discussion all over the place, so I'll just attend to it here.<br /><br /><i>(1) do you agree that Marx and Engels at least the end of the lives restricted the law of value in volume 1 of Capital to the pre-modern world of commodity exchange? Yes or no.</i><br /><br />No, but it depends on your meaning. If I were to answer "yes," I'd only be correct if we mean that the real functioning of the law of value were also the exclusive empirical case, unmodified by the effect of great variation in the composition of capital spurred by the development of technology via capitalism. Answering "no" would thus be more generally accurate, since this second factor is acting *in addition* to the law of value -- similar to how other we're able to fly around in airplanes through the operation of other laws acting in tandem with gravity, rather than defying it per se.<br /><br />As a realist, it is important for one to distinguish between the domain of the empirical (phenomena capable of being experienced with the senses), the actual (a superset of the empirical that also contains unexperienced events), and the real (a superset of the actual that also includes unactualized mechanisms). A function of scientific experiment is to create conditions that enable us to bring these three into alignment, such that a mechanism is actualized and observable in its direct operation. While this was close to being the case in pre-capitalist commodity exchange, the water is muddied by other factors in our more developed world. But the gravity is still there.<br /><br /><i>False. Yes, it does. And Engels says so. See the quote above.</i><br /><br />No, he definitely doesn't. The greater use of metal money "had the consequence that the determination of value by labour-time was no longer <b>visibly apparent on the surface of commodity exchange</b>." See my remarks above about the real/actual/empirical distinction.<br /><br /><i>lol... Because nowhere does Marx say that it is a totally unreal assumption never meant to apply to the real world.</i><br /><br />Nor do I, contrary to your assertion. You're already calling me dishonest when it's clear, per the above, that you've misunderstood. In essence, you're invoking a sort of Humean actualism, that "laws" are nothing more than constant conjunctions of events. So: *are* you a realist? Yes or no.<br /><br /><i>Because "pure labour values" has the virtue of being clear and communicating the right idea to the reader.</i><br /><br />Considering it departs from the theory you purport to discuss, I disagree.<br /><br /><i>The point of contention is precisely whether "value" is the apt word for some imagined labor content.</i><br /><br />No. The point is to discuss a scientific theory that has already defined its terms, in which case the semantics have already been settled. Departing from this only leaves open the door to equivocation, as we've seen numerous times here.<br /><br />By the by, Ken, in case you missed it: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/11/when-left-becomes-laughing-stock.html?showComment=1448490060202#c2863022930562152094Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-42679495036810916522015-11-30T17:36:38.987-08:002015-11-30T17:36:38.987-08:00Indeed. Not to do would be muddying. The point of ...Indeed. Not to do would be muddying. The point of contention is precisely whether "value" is the apt word for some imagined labor content. If I asserted that the value of a book was determined by the number of occurrences of the letter e in it, and announced the e theory of value wouldn't a refutation that was careful about distinguishing "B's e value" from any other use of the word value be useful? Clearly.<br />You are too patient LK. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8544650029754213452015-11-30T04:32:01.117-08:002015-11-30T04:32:01.117-08:00Thanks! In addition, the subforum may have trouble...Thanks! In addition, the subforum may have trouble generating popular/layman interest (I'm having trouble thinking of less-technical topics) - so anything you can think of, that may be a popular draw as a thread in the wider forum, is welcome too!<br />www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1727JohnBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04111028073811348708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21720069416665243172015-11-29T22:59:52.962-08:002015-11-29T22:59:52.962-08:00As for the rest of your comment, it is laughable n...As for the rest of your comment, it is laughable nickpicking pedantry.<br /><br /><i>"So why muddy them up by saying things like "pure labor values" when you simply mean "values"? It's just a pleonasm.)"</i><br /><br />Because "pure labour values" has the virtue of being clear and communicating the right idea to the reader. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12699975632219946232015-11-29T22:55:19.257-08:002015-11-29T22:55:19.257-08:00"Leaving aside the needless invective, exactl...<i>"Leaving aside the needless invective, exactly how does this passage that specifically <b>calls it an "assumption" somehow refute the idea that it is an assumption?</b> You leave this unexplained, which is a shame; it's bound to be a grand tale."</i><br /><br />lol... Because nowhere does Marx say that it is a totally unreal assumption never meant to apply to the real world. Marx is clearly using the word "assumption" in a different sense from you. <br /><br />The whole point of Engels' discussion of this passage is that he understood Marx to be arguing that the law of value in vol. 1 -- "The assumption that the commodities of the various spheres of production are sold at their value implies, of course, only that their value is the center of gravity around which prices fluctuate, and around which their rise and fall tends to an equilibrium" -- really happened in the pre-modern world of commodity exchange "down to the fifteenth century of our epoch."<br /><br />This is stated explicitly. You are guilty of the most laughable dishonesty.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57838407247657404552015-11-29T22:49:46.145-08:002015-11-29T22:49:46.145-08:00">But Marx says nothing about the rise of ...<i>">But Marx says nothing about the rise of <br />>commodity money overthrowing his law of value in <br />>modern capitalist production. <br /><br />Right, because it doesn't overthrow it. </i><br /><br />False. Yes, it does. And Engels says so. See the quote above.<br /><br />In modern capitalism prices of production became the anchors for the price system, whereas in vol. 1 the law of value is <br /><br /><i>“The assumption that the commodities of the various spheres of production are sold at their value implies, of course, only that their value is the center of gravity around which prices fluctuate, and around which their rise and fall tends to an equilibrium.”</i> (Marx 1909: 208–210).<br /><br />That is replaced in modern capitalism by prices of production, and as Engels says the use of gold from different countries with totally different SNLT, unknown to users of that gold in Europe, was a fundamental part of the end of the law of value as sketched in vol. 1.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47298272795804598082015-11-29T22:44:01.646-08:002015-11-29T22:44:01.646-08:00First, you have substantive questions you need to ...First, you have substantive questions you need to answer:<br /><br />(1) do you agree that Marx and Engels at least the end of the lives restricted the law of value in volume 1 of <i>Capital</i> to the pre-modern world of commodity exchange? Yes or <br />no?<br /><br />(2) If "yes" then what is your evidence that Marx also held this view when he published vol. 1? Where is this evidence?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64841011925475972772015-11-29T22:41:31.848-08:002015-11-29T22:41:31.848-08:00Will try and have a look. cheers.Will try and have a look. cheers.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com