Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> It was Bortciewicz who introduces the idea that surplus value is
> redistributed, and to analyse this redistribution quantitatively, requires
> the identity of total value=total price.
the identity is also in Marx, as is total surplus-value = total
property income ("profit").
(The idea of value being "redistributed" is a poor metaphor. Rather,
the product of X hours of (socially-necessary abstract) labor-time
might be able to command the product of a Y hours of SNALT, where X
and Y are unequal, as is usual under capitalism. "Unequal exchange" is
a better description.)
> I realize that the Marxists refer to a "conservation principle" but the
> point is that this is a strictly metaphysical idea.
so you're not addressing my explanation of the two identities. Oh well.
>.. I do not refer to conservation principle but
> consolidation principle since the Marxists reduce social reality to an
> accounting scheme. In that case, the term "consolidation" is more
> appropriate.
who are you talking about who "reduce[s] social reality to an
accounting scheme"? Please tell me who does this. Note that simply
using an accounting scheme is not the same as "reducing" social
reality to it.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
