Re: [OPE] Worth & Value

> 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.

Alejandro:

Just as one needs to distinguish between wealth and value, one needs to distinguish
between surplus product (which exists in many modes of production) and surplus value
(which is a more specific form in which the surplus product can manifest itself and which
is associated with more specific forms of social relations).

> 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.

This relates to what I wrote in another post: objects can be 'valued' but that does not mean that
they represent value. If Marxians conflate 'valued' with 'value', then I agree they have a problem.
Butt, most don't make that mistake.

> This explains in part why the pollution in the former soviet economies were larger than in mixed economies.

No doubt, there was pollution in those societies. But, on what basis - and with what sources - can you
determine that it was 'larger' there?

In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Feb 10 19:30:06 2009