Ted wrote: > The form taken by these principles in the version of them at issue > includes a "utility function".
No "utility function" is necessary. Check any advanced micro textbook to verify my claim. But, for the sake of argument let's say it is -- what is wrong with studying the implications of assuming that there's a logical relation between the actions people undertake and some measure of the ends they pursue (e.g. the development of free socialized individuals)? And, if we are to assume that there is such a logical relation, then what is wrong with assuming that relation is simple enough (e.g. a "function") for us to make clear deductions from that and other assumptions? Isn't that the way science proceeds in a number of fields? Because, .... don't people act purposefully? What is labor then? If people act purposefully, then what are the implications of their purposeful behavior, within the constraints imposed by their existing productive power and the social structures they've built? How do you figure out the basic principles that flow from the understanding that humans exhibit purposeful behavior? This is a very legitimate field of inquiry, and it is very relevant to building socialism, here, on earth. If Marx's ideas are not compatible with refining our understanding of how to economize conscious time (and I believe they are), then to hell with Marx's ideas! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
