On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:37 AM, nathan tankus <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you're "criticism" of the English side of the Cambridge Capital > Debates is silly. They weren't complaining about aggregation in the > abstract, they were complaining about the unit of account in which > aggregation was being done and the invalid conclusions based on that > questionable unit of account. I tried to explain that what you call the "unit of account" has two aspects: material content and social form. Both Cambridges confused the two. http://juliohuato.org/2012/04/05/on-the-cambridge-capital-critique/ Re-switching is possible under any social form, not only under capitalism. If it bothers us, disaggregate until re-switching stops being a practical concern. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
