From: Alejandro Agafonow (alejandro_agafonow@YAHOO.ES)
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 16:05:02 EDT
Jurriaan I use «dichotomy» to refer to your understanding of labour value in a different sense I use «duality» to refer to a still missing integral theory of value.
I’m going to consider your interesting argument later.
Alejandro Agafonow
----- Mensaje original ----
De: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@TISCALI.NL>
Para: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Enviado: lunes, 20 de agosto, 2007 21:49:13
Asunto: [OPE-L] Fact or philosophical conception?
I am still not really sure about what Alejandro's dual theory of value means. It seems to refer to several polarities:
- value in use, versus value in exchange
- competition versus cooperation (self-interest versus common interest)
- objective value, versus subjective value
What I am sure of, is that the existence of labour-value is an empirical claim, and not sinply a philosophical conception.
Marx defined economic life as the totality of production, distribution, circulation and consumption. However he never theorised consumption systematically. In the sphere of consumption, the aspect of use-value or utility obviously gains prominence. That is why Oskar Lange, among others, was in favour of integrating the insights of classical political economy with those of modern "utilitarian" economics.
I agree though with Alejandro that an economics concerned only with either exchange-value or use-value/utility would be an imbalanced economics. Marx's economics is plainly insufficient to run a wellfunctioning socialist economy, but then it was not intended primarily for that purpose.
Jurriaan
____________________________________________________________________________________
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