From: Alejandro Agafonow (alejandro_agafonow@YAHOO.ES)
Date: Sat Aug 18 2007 - 07:18:53 EDT
The term «dualism» has in economic science at least two meanings. It makes reference to a characteristic of less developed economies, where an advanced sector with a market oriented to exportation coexist with another sector, commonly tied to agriculture, where market exchange is less developed and kinship relations determine economic exchanges (See: Kanbur, R. y J. McIntosh. “Dual Economies”, J. Eatwell; M. Milgate y P. Newman, dirs., The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics I, 1998, London, Macmillan, pp. 921-924).
Another meaning of dualism makes reference to a mathematical problem in the mathematical modelling of individual preferences that don’t match with only one optimum (See: Newman, P. “Duality”, J. Eatwell; M. Milgate y P. Newman, dirs., The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics I, London, Macmillan, 1998, pp. 924-934).
I use the term «dualism» in a plain sense, avoiding the opposition between Monism and Dualism in the history of philosophy. I use it to make reference to another problem in economic theory that comes from the dialog between philosophy of law and economics. How to assign a market price to a good that has an incommensurable value for her owner? (See: Duxbury, N. “Markets and Incommensurability”, P. Newman, dir., The New Palgrave. Dictionary of Economics and the Law II, London, Macmillan, 1998, pp. 615-618)
I use the term to analyze the normative foundations of de-commodification of certain goods which «social value» is inalienable. It coincides with primary goods in rousseaunian-kantian tradition.
Dogan Goecmen: «Why do you reject to think on the basis of dialectics? Dialectics is supposed to take into account differences and commonness.»
I don’t remember if was Geral Cohen who called Analytical Marxism as no-bullshit Marxism. I don’t share necessary this indirect insult to Classical Marxism but surely it makes a crude reference to the difference between analytical philosophy, which I subscribe, and dialectics in Marxist sense. Marxist theories like that of Louis Althusser, for example, is useless to build a positive theory of socialism and I’m interested in this last goal.
Kind regards,
Alejandro Agafonow
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Dogan Goecmen <dogangoecmen@AOL.COM>
Para: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Enviado: sábado, 18 de agosto, 2007 11:09:42
Asunto: Re: [OPE-L] A startling quotation from Engels
"Only a dualist theory of value could integrate coherently both sides of human societies."
Dear Alejandro Agafonow,
at the moment I am not in a position to go into this as deep as as I wish. But let me please say just this: you refer to "dualism" as integrating category. But I think this is a contradition in terms. From my philosophical knowledge dualism is not about integration. On the contraray, it is about separation. It takes the diffrence as absolute, i.e. leaves aside the commonness. Why do you reject to think on the basis of dialectics? Dialectics is supposed to take into account differences and commonness.
Best, Dogan
Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle! Was es sonst noch umsonst bei AOL gibt, finden Sie hier heraus AOL.de.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine
¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/reto/entretenimiento.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT