Ajit Sinha writes:
Now, if we are in the business of interpretation, then we must first of all
develop an understanding of the problematic that particular author or the
book is dealing
>with. Only then we can ascertain the nature of the problem of value for
that author or the book.
My own view of why Marx needs a theory of value, why he is concerned with
it, is based my own reading of Marx and informed by the following
interpretions of Marx: Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory; Kozo Uno,
Principles of Political Economy; Isaac I. Rubin, Marx's Theory of Value &
History of Economic Thought; Roman Rosdolsy, The Making of Marx's Capital;
Oskar Lange, Political Economy; Johann Witt-Hansen, Historical Materialism:
The Method, the Theories. Needless to say, these authors do not all agree
on everything but, for me, works such as these come closest to Marx's
intention.
>In more general terms, I think every economic theory needs a theory of value
>because quantification in economics cannot take two steps without
confronting the need for a theory of value. The theory of value is
intricately linked with the
>problem of unit of measure.
There I agree with you emphatically. The absurdities of neo-eclassical
economics are ultimately traceable to the absence of a coherent concept of
economic value.
Cheers
Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:08 EST