Ajit writes:
>Then I think we will have fundamental difference about Marx's value
theory. For
>most of these authors, in my opinion, the problematic of value in Marx is not
>much different from the problematic of value in neoclassical economics. They
>essentially see it as a problematic of social division of labour in a
commodity
>producing economy. Rubin gets so bad that he even starts to draw the
neoclassical type supply and demand curves.
Reply:
There I don't think we agree. These authors interpret Marx to be concerned
both with the "problematic" of the division of labour and the problematic
of exploitation, as you phrase it. I don't think there is anything in
principle wrong with drawing supply and demand curves, if they reflect a
real situation (I don't have Rubin handy here). I think there is a use for
elements of neo-classical economics in post-capitalist society, therefore I
do not write it off altogether, I write off its more absurd ideas about how
a real economy functions. I haven't tried to build a theory of prices with
Marx's theory but it is possible to do it I think.
Ajit writes:
\
I don't know what you mean by absence of a concept of value? Cheers, ajit
sinha
Reply:
I did not say absence of a concept, I said absence of a COHERENT concept of
value. There are grave problems with the notion of marginal utility, for
instance, as Hilfderding already pointed out at the beginning of this
century.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST