Re: value and exchange value

[glevy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

This is a new post.  Continue reading.
>
>    Steve Keen:
>    -----------
>
> > As for Jerry's comment which concluded:
> > |It is for the above reasons that debates over value theory are so
> > |important. An understanding of the two-fold nature of the commodity was
> > |Marx's starting point regarding his critique of political economy.  Since
> > |Marxists can not agree on the starting point or on the method of analysis
> > |it is small wonder why we then diverge regarding the analysis of
> > |subsequent topics at other levels of abstraction.
> >
> > I can only agree!
>
>   Jerry (I):
>   ------
>
>   Steve agrees with the above. Do others?  If so, do not respond or respond
>   by writing to me privately. If not, could you explain why not?
>
>   Although I have no illusions about coming to an agreement on these
>   issues, it does seem to me that we could, at least, delineate our
>   differences more clearly.
>
    Jerry (II):
    -----------

    I have received no responses to the above post. I will, therefore,
    make the bold (and perhaps unwarranted) assumption that no one on the
    list disagrees with the thrust of the quote from me that is in Steve's
    section above.

    What meaning do I attach to this (possible) agreement?  The quote
    above contains no new revelation or insight in political economy for
    those who have studied political economy. It's useful, though, for
    those of you who wish to study political economy in the sense that it
    points the way forward towards understanding Marx's and Marxist
    political economy and debates within this tradition. It is intended
    as a marker buoy that will allow students of political economy to
    navigate their way through the fog into the harbor of greater
    understanding.

    The subject of Marx's political economy is within the grasp of all
    those who are willing and able to put in the time and effort for
    that study, and is not the domain only of academics and professional
    economists.  What is required, in the first instance, is a serious
    and critical examination of Marx's method of analysis.

    If you follow this procedure you will not necessarily come to the
    same conclusions or interpretations. However, you will have a greater
    understanding of the differences within Marxist political economy
    and the methodological underpinings of those differences.

    Do not be intimidated by the language and mathematics of professional
    Marxist economists.  You need not, for instance, study mathematical
    economics or statistics (although an understanding of the limitations
    of different mathematical methods and a critical knowledge of the
    assumptions of those models is required to critically read some
    articles and books on Marxist political economy). You can take it for
    granted that the math itself is formally correct since any article on
    economics will have to be read by a number of others prior to
    publication to ensure that there are no formal mathematical errors.

    I offer the above in the hope that it will be useful to some of you
    who wish to investigate this subject matter further. If there is
    anyone on the list who disagrees with the foregoing, I, once again
    invite you to explain your differences in interpretation.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------