In Message Tue, 01 Mar 1994 20:07:27 -0500 (EST),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Gil's response to Ajit, Part 2.
..
..
>This brings all, or at least most, of the pieces together. Ajit's
>argument here encounters a fundamental dilemma:
>
>EITHER
>1) CAPITAL cannot be considered the "bigger story" behind the
>Sraffian system, because the latter does not incorporate Marx's
>central problematic, the distinction between labor and labor power;
>
>OR
>2) CAPITAL can be considered the "bigger story" behind the Sraffian
>system, despite the latter's failure to explicitly incorporate the
>labor-labor power distinction; but in that case, as Roemer has
>demonstrated in detail, ***the Walrasian system that Sraffa is
>supposedly indicting can do everything the Sraffian system can do,
>and more***.
>
>[NOTE TO MIKE LEBOWITZ, JIM DEVINE, ET AL.--I'M NOT RESTARTING THE
>FIGHT OVER ROEMER HERE, GUYS! IT'S AN IF-THEN ARGUMENT! THAT'S ALL!
>HONEST!]
OK, Gil. I just want you know that I've pressed "1" on my touch-tone
phone (and, in fact, first voted that way in the Winter 1973-4 issue
of Science & Society). On the other hand, I assume that if you want to
be consistent (given your position on Roemer), you have to choose
"2" (explicitly accepting work which "does not incorporate Marx's
central problematic, the distinction between labor and labor power,"
as Marxist or CAPITAL-informed). Just another if-then argument. Honest!
cheers,
mike
Mike Lebowitz, Economics Dept.,Simon Fraser University
Burnaby,B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-3508 or 291-4669
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island refuge: Lasqueti Island, B.C. Canada V0R 2J0
(604) 333-8810
e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
