Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> Ajit Sinha writes:
> Now, if we are in the business of interpretation, then we must first of all
> develop an understanding of the problematic that particular author or the
> book is dealing
> >with. Only then we can ascertain the nature of the problem of value for
> that author or the book.
> My own view of why Marx needs a theory of value, why he is concerned with
> it, is based my own reading of Marx and informed by the following
> interpretions of Marx: Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory; Kozo Uno,
> Principles of Political Economy; Isaac I. Rubin, Marx's Theory of Value &
> History of Economic Thought; Roman Rosdolsy, The Making of Marx's Capital;
> Oskar Lange, Political Economy; Johann Witt-Hansen, Historical Materialism:
> The Method, the Theories. Needless to say, these authors do not all agree
> on everything but, for me, works such as these come closest to Marx's
Then I think we will have fundamental difference about Marx's value theory. For
most of these authors, in my opinion, the problematic of value in Marx is not
much different from the problematic of value in neoclassical economics. They
essentially see it as a problematic of social division of labour in a commodity
producing economy. Rubin gets so bad that he even starts to draw the neoclassical
type supply and demand curves.
> >In more general terms, I think every economic theory needs a theory of value
> >because quantification in economics cannot take two steps without
> confronting the need for a theory of value. The theory of value is
> intricately linked with the
> >problem of unit of measure.
> There I agree with you emphatically. The absurdities of neo-eclassical
> economics are ultimately traceable to the absence of a coherent concept of
> economic value.
I don't know what you mean by absence of a concept of value? Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:08 EST