From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 06:09:31 EDT
--- glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: > Hi Ajit: > > The "conservation principle" used by some modern > Marxian > economists is the *axiom* that value is conserved in > exchange. > What this is intended to convey is the principle > that the act > of exchange itself can't create new value. We > probably have > different reasons for disliking this axiom. What I > don't > like is -- at least the way I have seen it applied > -- the assertion > that value once created can't be *destroyed* except > through > use. This leads to models of moral depreciation in > which value > is simply redistributed among capitalists rather > than there also > causing a destruction of capital values. It might > also be taken > to infer that value is simply redistributed through > war and genocide > rather than those acts causing a dimunition in > aggregate value. ____________________ By *axiom* one generally understands something like: self evidently ture. Thus it does not need any justification or argument to rest on. In the context of *value*, the main problem is that nobody understands what it means. If you have five Marxists in a room, you will have at least 25 different meanings of the word *value*--i.e. on the average every Marxist holds five different meaning of value. What you call above an *axiom* is not an axiom but rather one particular *definition* of value (or rather part of a definition of value). In other words, it is asserted to be so by definition but that does not mean that it is self evidently true. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 31 2007 - 00:00:08 EDT