SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Thu Jun 22 22:29:52 2006
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References:
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
James C.W. Ahiakpor wrote:  
> Thus, I don't think I   
> have misrepresented Marx's argument, as Rod alleges.  True, I have now   
> included congealed labor in constant capital as part of the   
> withholding from labor.  But that's just taking a dynamic view of the   
> "exploitation" process, the type of analysis Rod earlier wished I   
> would do instead of a "static state" version.  
  
  
  
I misunderstand nothing. You repeat the misrepresentation again in the   
last sentence. Dynamic or static doesn't matter. Depreciation is not   
part of surplus anywhere in Marx's writings. Just admit the mistake and   
move on.  
  
Rod Hay  

ATOM RSS1 RSS2