Date: Thu May 10 2007 - 10:40:21 EDT
Hi Ajit: I agree that perspectives on value -- and political economy in general -- which depend on axioms are problematic. From a history of thought perspective, I believe the axiomatic method insinuated itself into discourse on economics at part of the modern trend towards mathematical formalizations of economic theory. In solidarity, Jerry ____________________ > By *axiom* one generally understands something like: > self evidently ture. Thus it does not need any > justification or argument to rest on. In the context > of *value*, the main problem is that nobody > understands what it means. If you have five Marxists > in a room, you will have at least 25 different > meanings of the word *value*--i.e. on the average > every Marxist holds five different meaning of value. > What you call above an *axiom* is not an axiom but > rather one particular *definition* of value (or rather > part of a definition of value). In other words, it is > asserted to be so by definition but that does not mean > that it is self evidently true.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 31 2007 - 00:00:08 EDT