Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
> Ajit writes:
> >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
> >producing economy. Rubin gets so bad that he even starts to draw the
> neoclassical type supply and demand curves.
> There I don't think we agree. These authors interpret Marx to be concerned
> both with the "problematic" of the division of labour and the problematic
> of exploitation, as you phrase it.
The question is not about Marx's concern, but rather the value problematic. In
what context Marx needs a theory of value, and what is the nature of this theory.
> I don't think there is anything in
> principle wrong with drawing supply and demand curves, if they reflect a
> real situation (I don't have Rubin handy here). I think there is a use for
> elements of neo-classical economics in post-capitalist society, therefore I
> do not write it off altogether, I write off its more absurd ideas about how
> a real economy functions. I haven't tried to build a theory of prices with
> Marx's theory but it is possible to do it I think.
Do you think Marx has a notion of demand and supply sechudles? Are you sure about
what goes into developing these curves? Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 27 2000 - 15:27:09 EST