On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Mike Meeropol wrote: > Just a very brief intervention on "the V word". I learned a lot from > Alan's post. I look forward to seeing the discussion move forward. > > Here's the problem I've always had: Value in effect is what modern algebra > calls an "equivalence" relation --- with transitivity, reciprocity, etc. --- > the specification of that equivalence relation is the term "is worth". > > If A "is worth" B, then B "is worth A" > If A "is worth" B, and B "is worth" C, then A "is worth" C > A "is worth" A. > > I think that covers it. > > The question alan has posed is: Is there something OTHER THAN THAT > RELATIONSHIP ITSELF that explains this equivalence relation? The > neoclassical paradigm claims it is the result of the interaction of supply > and demand --- scarcity interacting with preferences plus incomes. > > Marx's approach stated that the relationship was the result of HUMAN EFFORT > -- both past and present. > > I still haven't been convinced that he or his followers have made a good > enough case for that particular yardstick. > > > Cheers, Mike > -- > Mike Meeropol Mike, I don't think it is much a question of convincing with a good enough case. I think it is a simple question of perspective. What is there in defining the common character of bourgeoise wealth for workers' perspective but "human effort" - as you call it - that is, the fact that we have to work within despotic capitalist relations. A perspective much different than that of capital, for which machines and people do not kake much difference, they both are treated as inputs of production. Cheers Massimo De Angelis (University of East London)
