From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Feb 25 2007 - 10:13:51 EST
> Hi Anders, > Good to have a talk! I wish I had your energy. I was impressed with how > you relate your insights into economics to possible economic > alternatives. Hi Jurriaan: What post by Anders was your message a reply to? > In this context it would be wrong to say that Marx has an "objective > theory > of value" because this severs object and subject. Rather, he has a > relational theory of value, in which value is expressed through > people-people, people-thing and thing-thing relations. Ultimately, those > relations can be expressed only in dialectical categories since the value > relations between objects and subjects operate between different logical > levels, and are in constant motion. I see your point and agree that it is misleading to view Marx's theory as an "objective theory of value". A couple of history of thought questions (for anyone on the list who knows the answers): 1) From a history of thought perspective, who was the first to use "objective theory of value" to describe her/his or someone else's perspective? I don't think Marx ever described his own theory using that expression. Eventually, some of the Austrian marginalists referred to it in contrast to their own perspective, but I wonder when it was first used and by whom? 2) I think I see why you refer to Marx's theory as a "relational theory of value", but it may be a confusing designation because some others from very different perspectives have used it. E.g. the theory of some Austrian economists including von Mises and Menger has been described by other Austrian economists as a relational theory of value. So, when was the expression "relational theory of value" first used and by whom? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST