From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Sat Jun 05 2004 - 09:04:48 EDT
--On Friday, June 04, 2004 2:32 PM -0400 Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > Yes, I think we have identified two fundamental differences: first, you > think value is a theoretical object but not a real one and I do think it > is a real object. Obviously this makes all the difference. A theoretical > object does not cause things. We have to explain changes in nature and > society on the basis of real objects. Howard, Is the corpus of Marx's work a theory or reality? Are mode of production, labor power, constant capital, variable capital, surplus value, production of absolute surplus value, production of relative surplus value, etc., real objects or theoretical objects? Marx explicitly refers to his "definition of constant capital" (Vol. I, p. 202, Lawrence & Wishart ed.), which sounds theoretical to me. Also, Marx had simply referred to 'labor' in earlier work before he introduced 'labor power', which seems like his producing a concept. If you reply that most or all of these are theoretical objects, then why would 'value' be any different? Are certain of these concepts real objects while others are theoretical objects? > ... You have asserted the non-existence of value in the ancient world, and > questioned my argument. Still, you haven't said why value only exists > under capitalism. Correct. I'm probing to understand what is that 'value' is. I haven't arrived at this important issue. Paul Z. *********************************************************************** RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 07 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT