Re: [OPE] Worth & Value

From: Gerald Levy <>
Date: Tue Feb 10 2009 - 19:24:21 EST

> But the fact that this balance were more stable and the difference shorter, does not mean that
> exploitation were absent–if there were such a thing like exploitation.


Just as one needs to distinguish between wealth and value, one needs to distinguish
between surplus product (which exists in many modes of production) and surplus value
(which is a more specific form in which the surplus product can manifest itself and which
is associated with more specific forms of social relations).

> But I understand the accent Jerry put upon wealth instead of value. And here Marxists have a big problem.
> If the so called original factors of production (natural resources) have not value, how is it possible that we
> can recognize a worth on them and that they can make a real contribution to the product.

This relates to what I wrote in another post: objects can be 'valued' but that does not mean that
they represent value. If Marxians conflate 'valued' with 'value', then I agree they have a problem.
Butt, most don't make that mistake.

> This explains in part why the pollution in the former soviet economies were larger than in mixed economies.

No doubt, there was pollution in those societies. But, on what basis - and with what sources - can you
determine that it was 'larger' there?

In solidarity, Jerry

ope mailing list
Received on Tue Feb 10 19:30:06 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT