As to the second point, I should like to note that my critical observation has not so much to do with the ‘sin of omission’ of not having treated the problem of transformation, but rather with the ‘sin of commission’ of having attempted to uproot Marx’s analysis from the concept of equilibrium. This operation would, in my opinion, make it impossible to understand the meaning of essential parts of his analysis. In the first place, the passage from values to prices, which is ‘fundamental’ at a logical level in order to provide a demonstration (which could not be provided, as we know today) of the ‘reality of exploitation’, also for the general case of the non-validity of the labour theory of value. It is in this perspective that the problem arises of where to place Sraffa, who is excluded from both the orthodox and the heretical groups, a ‘victim’ of Lunghini’s rejection of a notion of equilibrium freed from value judgements. On the contrary, Lunghini considers Sraffa’s ‘suppression of value judgements’ as ‘dangerous, as it distracts from the analysis of what happens in the sphere of production’. A thesis that would be plausible only if it did not refer to the Sraffian framework of the general determination of production prices and alluded instead to the lack, in Sraffa, of a Marxian-type analysis of the ‘essence’ of phenomena, as opposed to capitalist ‘appearances’. In that case, however, in avoiding the Sraffian ‘distraction’, the analysis would encounter insurmountable difficulties regarding the transformation of values into prices – difficulties which cannot be exorcised with the emphasis – of a dubious exegetic and especially dubious logical solidity – on the ‘transformation’ as a historical process.