> 2. Rifkin's Zero Margin Cost story has a lot of holes, as criticized here: > http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/contra-rifkin-1-food-and-manufacturing-will-never-be-zero-marginal-cost/2014/09/30 > (I hate to quote Eric Raymond, with whom I fundamentally disagree on > most things, but I do agree with a lot of that.)
Thanks Bob, this is indeed going into the core problem. The rejection of 'cost-of-production' in the 'subjective theory of value' developed by Teacher and thought father of Hayek and Missest, not himself a conservative, yet ideas founded 'marginalist revolution'; Carl Menger: Carl Menger (German: [ˈmɛŋɐ]; February 23, 1840 – February 26, 1921) was the founder of the Austrian School of economics. Menger contributed to the development of the theory of marginalism, (marginal utility), which rejected the cost-of-production theories of value, such as were developed by the classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The historical links as such important, not only memory wise but also increase our awareness and consciousness when we are looking at. So I was just keep going searching and thinking about Tektology, Hayek, so on, then started to think about Rifkin's zero 'marginal cost' story, where it is coming from and where it is heading to. There are more info and good links here in Wikipedia: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Menger about Merger, the official founder of 'Austrian Schools of Economics'. The entire project is launched to overcome the 'normative' perspectives dominating socialist movements, focusing to much on the 'costs-of-production', especially form the perspective of workers and citizens thinking irrelevant issues as injustice, labour exploitation, and environmental destruction. This looking at economy from people's point of, instead of capitalist point of view was very objectivist and annoying. They needed science that is totally ethics free. So he comes up, together with Jevon's and Walras's contributions, with a revolutionary 'universal' pure scientific economic vision called marginalism, based on utility based value of the last piece consumed by consumer. This became the motto of mainstream academic teachings, from psychology, to sociology, and served for disciplining all marginalists expect this sort :) For further info on marginalists, the historical context it emerged in: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism#History With an apology, should say here too ties take us to the underlying distinction in methodological and philosophical debates, fights, or class wars.. Which were dividing the lines between as follows: Hegel's Idealism > Fuerbach's materialism > Marx' historical and dialectic materialism > Mach's idealist subjective energetism > and Bogdanov's final synthesis in Tektology. Then a long pause of revolution, wars and fascism. Menger being influenced by all these debates and political climate proposes his ideas of me materialism to oppose normative value theory of labour, exactly on 1871, year of commune in Paris. Being not a pure scientific theory, but a class act to counter Marxian vision ants politics that seeks more egalitarian society defines the normative aspects of the marginalizers' mission, not less then Marxist value theory was. Previous and Later developments, shows how ideas, politics, production, costs, are forming and interacting in space-time historically.. Innovations being taken from adversaries and turned around.. Causing transformation in class and power structures, identities, struggles, and relationships in and out multi-layered and multi-dimensional complexes moving and chaining in space time.. So actually Michel, and Ervin Lazslo are quite correct when they criticize Ken Wilber's cult version of Integral analyses, and others influenced Wilber by being ahistorical. That ahistorical-ness comes from Merger's tradition, and a hand trick by Hayek, a pick pocketing of an methodology developed by a Bolshevik. World should not know about this. Hayek promoted himself as the smartest guy, trained Friedman and Rand, influenced Popper, Soros, behavioralism and neoliberalism, libertarian and techno utopian capitalists of California and Silicon Valley's Singularists. While what stolen, actually has been inspiring entire spectrum of countering forces, good hackers, environmentalists, squatters, queers, situationists, and other utopian or not systemic critics of capitalism. The unity problem we are tackling is not the unity of 100 percent, but the 99 percent. That is why instead of an a-historic integral version of it, we need historical, absolute humanist, and recovered version of a 'global' dialectical methodology.. Orsan
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
