Re: Global unequal exchange

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06/06/02 08:49 -0400, Proyect wrote:
> Burford:
> > But I wanted to ask whether others agree with the statement above. It
> >appears self evident if there is mobility of information and transport of
> >commodities across a market. But in a deeper marxist sense is it consistent
> >with the law of value?
>
> Of course it is consistent with the law of value. How can it not be?

I posted my question, which Proyect did not quote, to elicit deeper
discussion of how inequality and exploitation actually works. A lot of
people do not believe in the law of value, or call it the labour theory of
value. Groups for radical global reform have an eclectic list of measures
to mitigate the intensifying global inequality. I am disappointed that
Proyect appears in this statement to treat the law of value as a dogma, and
implies a reproof that all right minded marxists should of course agree
with the LOV. In my opinion that damages the practical relevance of marxism
and divides marxists from non-marxists.

I raised other questions about the meaning of the formulation I quoted
which Proyect does not discuss (instead emphasising that the wider article
from which I quoted is in favour of the imperialist integration of Europe)

In particular I recall that Marx on one occasion argued that the value of a
commodity relates to the *average* means of production for it in the
market. The formula I quoted however implies the most competitive areas
determining prices. There is nowadays an enormous gap between the two. Does
that matter? How is that analysed from a marxist point of view, and how
much does it contribute to imperialist superprofits?


Chris Burford