LOV - value of references?
JDevine at lmumail.lmu.edu
Mon Jul 3 10:42:13 MDT 1995
Justin writes: >>In re. Jim Devine's earlier cavil about my sharp
distinction between the historical materialist and the
value-theoretic Marx: Jim says in essence as I understand him,
that all he understands value talk to be is a historical
materialist way of describing social relations in a class
society--it doesn't have anythiung to do with prices (even
aggregate prices) or anything quantitative about capitalist
No, value has a lot to do with the _aggregate_ level and value
isn't irrelevant on the individual level. I'll drop a name here
to answer this: see James Devine, "The Utility of Value: The 'New
Solution,' Unequal Exchange, and Crisis," RESEARCH IN POLITICAL
ECONOMY, vol. 12 (1990). I just posted some other stuff on this,
so I won't repeat it.
>>I am willing to accept that the rationa; core or value theory
is just something like this. I think taht taking thius line means
kicking away the ladder after we have climbed it.<<
I don't understand the meaning of this metaphor in this context.
>>I further think taht this is what Marx, more or less, does, and
once we have got to that point, value talk is dispensable. So
maybe Jim and I agree, although I certainly share Gil Skillman's
complaints that Jim's theory of the LYV is mainly negative (it's
not this, it's not that), and so is hard to understand.<<
Again, see my article. Anyway, it was Ajit Sinha's complaint.
BTW, his article in the same issue of RPE was very good.
for socialism from below,
Jim Devine jdevine at lmumail.lmu.edu
Los Angeles, CA (the city of emphysema)
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism