Re: "It's not Marx"

[Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not wanting to get myself any deeper into hot water, I'll
respond to just one of Jim Devine's points.  I don't
really get the idea that (quote)

price/value deviations befuddle our consciousness and obscure the
class nature of the capitalist system to its participants. (unquote)

Elsewhere Jim makes the same point the other way round, i.e.
if only prices and values were strictly proportional, capitalist
exploitation would be "visible" to all.

Where is this idea coming from?  I would have said that although
feudal exploitation may be "visible" (e.g. the corvee), cap.
exploitation is "concealed" by "fair exchange" -- and, in
a sense, the fairer the exchange the *better* the disguise.
Marx's task was to show -- contrary to a widespread view --
that *even* if commodities exchanged in proportion to their
labor-content, there would still be exploitation.  Thus I
feel that Jim has this point backwards.

==========================
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
cottrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(910) 759-5762
==========================