- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine"
> In volume III, as he turns to the issue of how competition works and how
> the participants perceive the system and act on those perceptions, he
drops
> the assumption that commodities trade at value (so that there is unequal
> exchange, the "trans
"At 07:13 PM 04/16/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Jim Devine"
>
> > [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between
>"what's
> > good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange)
> > and how the system works in practice (e
there is no "contrast" between the real (exploitation) and the moral
(equal exchange) in Capital. It is capitalism, not Marx, that creates the
contrast, to make us believe free market distributes fairly. Marx
objectively reads capitalism as the way it is..
Mine
>> [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a l
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Devine"
> [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between
"what's
> good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange)
> and how the system works in practice (exploitation in production).
Surely Marx's entire po
O.K. This seems right. My question: Does the novelty (or
at leas relative novelty) of the reaction reflect someone's
deliberate estimation of the threat, or merely a more-or-
less run of the mill police over-reaction? . . .
[mbs] It's an over-reaction if you are interested
in upholding the law,