Re: on money

[ajit sinha <sinha_a99@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Marx after  all criticized Ricardo for forgetting
> that though the
> technical means  for surplus labor may exist, that
> does not make
> surplus labor exist  in reality. "For this to occur,
> the labourer
> must be compelled to  work in excess of [necessary]
> time, and this
> compulsion exerted by
> capital. This is missing in Ricardo's [and Sraffa's
> workrb] and
> therefore the whole struggle over the regulation of
> the normal
> working day."
> TSVII, p. 406 I think this quote has been unduly
> ignored.
______________
But not by me! You can find this quote given a great
deal of importance in my paper, 'The transformation
Problem: Is the Standard Commodity a Solution' in
RRPE, 2000. And if my memory serves me right, probably
also in 'Revisiting the Value Controversy' in RESEARCH
IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, vol.15, 1996. In my opinion,
Sraffa will have no problem with this. Further, in my
opinion, Sraffian prices are not necessarily
"equilibrium" prices. The system also has nothing to
do with "full employment". Sraffa was not ignorant
about money. His early work was on money itself, and
his criticism of Mussolini's monetary policy caused
him a lot of trouble. Further, his critique of Hayak
is also about money. The trouble is that most of the
critics of Sraffa know next to nothing about Sraffa's
project. I have a draft criticism (10 typed pages) of
A.K. Sen's recent paper in JEL on 'Sraffa,
Wittgenstein, and Gramsci', which may clarify some of
the philosophical point of Sraffa's project. If there
is enough interest and the list manager allows, I'll
be happy to send it along for a discussion on OPE-L.
Cheers, ajit sinha





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/