[OPE-L:8570] Re: Re: probabilistic approaches to the theory of value and philosophy

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@dircon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 08:10:03 EST

gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> said:

> Re Phil's [8566]:
> > I now think that the magnitude of a commodity's intrinsic value 
> > is an accidental property of the commodity.  
> In what sense or senses do you mean that the magnitude of value
> is an "accidental" property of a commodity?
Exchange-value is accidental because it falls under the category of relation.
Intrinsic value is accidental because it falls under the category of quantity.
Intrinsic value can fluctuate like market price. It can have the relation of
equality with the value of the money it sells for. The reason this seems
strange is due to a confusion of the notion of intrinsic labour value with
that of natural price. I have suffered from this confusion in the past. 
Natural price is immunised against market fluctuation.

> > The link with probability is in terms of Aristotle's notion of a power 
> > (dynamis) and its activity (energeia) and the result or realisation or 
> > recognition (entelecheia) of this activity.  Briefly, the value creating 
> > activity of labour-power is recognized/measured both in the labour 
> > market as money wages and in the product market via prices.  
> Interesting.  I think that value-form theorists and temporalists (as well
> as some others, e.g. Riccardo and Fred) would agree with that last 
> sentence.  Dualists and simultaneists might disagree,  I believe.

I have been strongly influenced by value-form theory and temporalism, but I do
hold fast to the notion of intrinsic embodied labour value and the 'immanent
measure' which value-form theory strongly rejects as 'Ricardian'.
> > These two measurements are related probabilistically.
> Which is interesting because not all of those who have been influenced
> by Farjoun and Machover would agree about when and how the
> value-creating activity of labour-power is recognized and measured.
> I guess theorists from a number of perspectives have used F&M as
> a springboard for further research.  What do you think about the work
> of Webber and Rigby -- two others who were strongly influenced by
> F&M?

I will have a look at the exchanges on OPE-L on this. I haven't read any of
the work of Webber and Rigby.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 21 2003 - 00:00:00 EST