Re: [OPE-L] Fact or philosophical conception?

From: Alejandro Agafonow (alejandro_agafonow@YAHOO.ES)
Date: Mon Aug 20 2007 - 16:05:02 EDT

Jurriaan I use «dichotomy» to refer to your understanding of labour value in a different sense I use «duality» to refer to a still missing integral theory of value.
I’m going to consider your interesting argument later.
Alejandro Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@TISCALI.NL>
Enviado: lunes, 20 de agosto, 2007 21:49:13
Asunto: [OPE-L] Fact or philosophical conception?

I am still not really sure about what Alejandro's dual theory of value means. It seems to refer to several polarities:
- value in use, versus value in exchange
- competition versus cooperation (self-interest versus common interest)
- objective value, versus subjective value
What I am sure of, is that the existence of labour-value is an empirical claim, and not sinply a philosophical conception. 
Marx defined economic life as the totality of production, distribution, circulation and consumption. However he never theorised consumption systematically. In the sphere of consumption, the aspect of use-value or utility obviously gains prominence. That is why Oskar Lange, among others, was in favour of integrating the insights of classical political economy with those of modern "utilitarian" economics. 
I agree though with Alejandro that an economics concerned only with either exchange-value or use-value/utility would be an imbalanced economics. Marx's economics is plainly insufficient to run a wellfunctioning socialist economy, but then it was not intended primarily for that purpose.

Sé un Mejor Amante del Cine                         
¿Quieres saber cómo? ¡Deja que otras personas te ayuden!

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT