Re: [OPE-L] Robert Owen

From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 14:46:39 EDT

I merely and exactly replied to your question. Smith analysed market  
relations in terms of power relations. Please show me where he equates markets  to 
free speach. Don't you have your plate not full?
In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 20:35:14 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  

---  Dogan Goecmen <Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Ajit,  thank you very much for your  questions.
> By 'market in  itself' I mean that we can develop an
> objective understanding
>  of market independently from what all sorts of
> ideologies say about  and
> ascribe  to it. I mean the question we have to pose
>  is this: what is the nature of
> market. Based on this objective grasp  we can then
> judge about these ideologies
>  whether they  are right or wrong. Market is an
> institution where humans get
>  in  touch with one another for a certain purpose:
> the exchange of  commodities.
> That  is to say that human relations on market  are
> mediated by commodities -
> either  directly or  indirectly by means of money.
> So, the question what is the
>  nature of  market changes into the question what is
> the nature of  commodity
> and money.The  analysis of commodity and money  must
> then be analysed in terms of
> human relation  because  commodities are being
> exchanged by human beings.
> These  questions  are profoundly posed and analysed,
> I think, in the  first Chapter
> of the Capital  of Marx. This is my reply to  your
> two questions in short.
> Thanks  again.
Thanks for your reply. As you must know  Adam Smith
considered market as part of the sphere of free
speech. When  a buyer or a seller offers to buy or sell
something at a price, he or she  is simultaneously
putting forward an argument to convince the  other
party of why it is in his or her advantage to buy or
sell that  commodity at that price. It is part of the
whole enlightenment program. So  I was expecting a
little more on market than you have given and again  to
say that "These questions  are profoundly posed and
analysed, I  think, in the first Chapter of the Capital
of Marx." is not an answer to  the question, why do
you think that CAPITAL ch.1 has the best analysis  of
it? But I can see you have your plate full and you
need not feel  obliged to answer my questions. Cheers,
ajit  sinha

Do You  Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection  around

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST