on 2/7/02 06:30 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
value vs price
by Devine, James
05 February 2002 19:46 UTC
On exploitation, my take is that he noticed that in FACT,
throughout history, exploited and oppressed classes struggle
against their exploitation and oppression.
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:34 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22536] value vs. price
value vs. price
by Ian Murray
07 February 2002 01:47 UTC
=
You're right, there is no new
Charles wrote:
On exploitation, my take is that he noticed that in FACT,
throughout history, exploited and oppressed classes struggle
against their exploitation and oppression. Opposition to
exploitation is a human natural ethical project ; the is of
history and the ought of what
- Original Message -
From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:09 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22467] value vs. price
value vs. price
by Ian Murray
05 February 2002 17:09 UTC
=
Ok but surely we can understand
[Ian gave me permission to send this one-to-one communication to the pen-l
list as a whole.]
I wrote:the real-world fallacy of composition (or division) is
crucial: in this context, it says that the microeconomic processes
governed by prices do not correspond to the macroeconomic processes
In a message dated 2/5/2002 8:59:14 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As Cornel West's analysis of Marx's take on morality suggests, Marx
applied the standards of "bourgeois right" (trading at price = value) to
show that capitalist violates _its own standards_. Marx clearly had
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 6:56 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:22384] RE: Re: value vs. price
[Ian gave me permission to send this one-to-one communication to
the pen-l
list as a whole.]
I wrote:the real-world
Charles writes:
CB: My take on Marx normative issues is that he asserts many
injunctions ( such as Workers of the world , unite, the
thing is to change the world) , so he has an ethical
component to his theory. Ethics is what one does, and so
Marx's emphasis on the unity of theory and
I wrote: the use of value concepts allows the understanding of the
capitalist system as a totality. Lacking this understanding -- and more
importantly, the ability to act on this understanding -- is one aspect
of the anarchy of production, a necessary component of the existence
of crises.
Ok but
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
you can't understand what Marx is talking about in CAPITAL if you
don't
understand his jargon and more importantly, his way of approaching
the
question, which is summarized by his phrase the law of value.
This lack of
on 2/2/02 08:50 AM, Devine, James at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[was: RE: [PEN-L:22192] Re: RE: Re: re: re: Historical Materialism]
Ian asks:
If one can do the quantitative side of Marx without the value
theory and achieve the same results as those who use the value
theory, which side is
miyachi [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]writes:
Sir Devine, James
I am not a British lord, but a commoner (a better class of human being,
BTW).
your definition on price and value is incorrect. price is false
appearance of a category of value product.
I wasn't defining price or value. I was making
I wrote: One way of summarizing this whole issue is as follows:
(1) the distinction between value and price roughly corresponds to
the orthodox distinction between social opportunity cost and
opportunity cost to an individual. Both of these are quantitative.
Ian writes: How do we get from *soc*
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One way of summarizing this whole issue is as follows:
(1) the distinction between value and price roughly corresponds to
the
orthodox distinction between social opportunity cost and
opportunity cost
to an individual. Both of
14 matches
Mail list logo
