[OPE] Worth & Value

Marxist theory of value assumes that in primitive accumulation there were not surplus value because in this stage the discovery of more efficient production methods, which distort the allegedly tendency of the economy to reach a demand and supply balance, is limited. That is, the difference between market prices and natural prices increased after the industrial revolution and the launch of the capitalist mode of production.   But the fact that this balance were more stable and the difference shorter, does not mean that exploitation were absent–if there were such a thing like exploitation. It just means that the possibility of extracting a larger surplus value were more limited before industrial revolution. Therefore, it was possible to extract value from not-capitalist social formation.   But I understand the accent Jerry put upon wealth instead of value. And here Marxists have a big problem. If the so called original factors of production (natural resources) have not value, how is it possible that we can recognize a worth on them and that they can make a real contribution to the product.   So, there is a misunderstanding in LTV about the relation between worth and value, and therefore the accounting of original factors of production has been defective, encouraging their overexploitation. This explains in part why the pollution in the former soviet economies were larger than in mixed economies. If we were in a Marxist world the problem of global warming had been far worse.   Regards, A. Agafonow ________________________________ De: Gerald Levy <jerry_levy@verizon.net> Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> Enviado: martes, 10 de febrero, 2009 14:37:57 Asunto: Re: [OPE] Odyssey and the Peruvian treasure  > Jerry: **Socialists should support reparations (to whom?) for wealth stolen by capital from non-capitalists social formations**. > AA: If we follow the Marxian theory of value this would carry us to the beginning of times. A clearly unfeasible alternative.     Alejandro:   The theory of value, as such, does not address this question.   The gold which was plundered represented wealth within non-capitalist societies; it did not initially take the commodity-form and its production was not value production. The so-called primitive accumulation of capital should not be confused with the production of value and surplus value: wealth should not be conflated with value.   In solidarity, Jerry   P.S. As of the moment that I am writing us, we are still experiencing list distribution issues: at least two other posts have been sent to the list but not distributed - one of which was sent by Paul C and  includes phots of the sit-in. This is frustrating.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Feb 10 18:18:40 2009